To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Like every authoritarian before him, Trump is working to co-opt news sources and control what the public sees and hears. Too many corporate outlets are bending the knee—but not Common Dreams. We will never be intimidated, and we will never compromise the core values that define our community: social justice, universal human rights, equality, and peace. Because we are funded by ordinary people like you, our editorial freedom is guaranteed.
This photo taken on January 3, 2022 shows people constructing a new house near an overturned vehicle and other debris in Burgos town, Siargao island, weeks after super Typhoon Rai devastated the island.
The lawsuit centers on Philippine laws stating that citizens have the right to a healthy environment.
Dozens of survivors of a "super typhoon" that struck the Philippines are suing fossil fuels giant Shell for its role in causing the climate emergency in a landmark lawsuit.
As reported by The Guardian, 66 victims of Typhoon Rai, a 2021 storm that killed more than 400 people and left millions more displaced, filed a lawsuit in the United Kingdom on Wednesday demanding that Shell provide them with financial compensation for their losses.
The Guardian noted that this is the first-ever civil complaint "to directly link polluting companies to deaths and personal injuries that have already happened in the Global South," as most other lawsuits against fossil fuel companies have been focused on potential future risks.
In the US earlier this year, a woman named Misti Leon sued several fossil fuel giants, arguing they were liable for the death of her mother, who died in an extreme heatwave in the Pacific Northwest in 2021.
The attorneys representing the victims in the Philippines case have invited Shell to respond to their allegations, and said they will file the case with the UK High Court by the end of the year if the two parties do not come to an agreement.
The lawsuit centers on Philippine laws stating that citizens have the right to a healthy environment, and it cites leaked internal documents from Shell that suggest it possessed full knowledge about the negative impact its activities are having on the climate.
Greg Lascelles, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the fact that Shell continued to aggressively expand its fossil fuel extraction operations "knowing the harm they would cause, coupled with deliberately misinforming the public, can be considered acting contrary to certain provisions of Filipino law."
A spokesperson for Shell told The Guardian that it is not fair to blame their company exclusively for the global climate emergency.
"The suggestion that Shell had unique knowledge about climate change is simply not true," they said. "The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has been part of public discussion and scientific research for decades."
One 1988 document from Shell cautioned that "by the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the situation," while another projected that "catastrophic weather events" could eventually trigger lawsuits against governments and oil companies.
"After all, two successive [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports since 1995 have reinforced the human connection to climate change," wrote Shell scenario planners.
Although the lawsuit against Shell is the first to directly link fossil fuel companies to recent climate disasters in the Global South, Climate Home News noted in a Thursday report that many legal experts believe that a ruling earlier this year from a court in Germany "confirmed that climate science can establish legal liability for damage caused by emissions."
Specifically, the court this past May found that companies can be held liable for climate damages, although it dismissed a specific claim from a Peruvian farmer who had sued German energy company RWE for allegedly putting his home at risk of floods due to melting glaciers.
As The Guardian reported at the time, the court ruled that polluters "must bear the costs in proportion to their share of... emissions" if they fail to take "preventative measures" to reduce environmental destruction.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Dozens of survivors of a "super typhoon" that struck the Philippines are suing fossil fuels giant Shell for its role in causing the climate emergency in a landmark lawsuit.
As reported by The Guardian, 66 victims of Typhoon Rai, a 2021 storm that killed more than 400 people and left millions more displaced, filed a lawsuit in the United Kingdom on Wednesday demanding that Shell provide them with financial compensation for their losses.
The Guardian noted that this is the first-ever civil complaint "to directly link polluting companies to deaths and personal injuries that have already happened in the Global South," as most other lawsuits against fossil fuel companies have been focused on potential future risks.
In the US earlier this year, a woman named Misti Leon sued several fossil fuel giants, arguing they were liable for the death of her mother, who died in an extreme heatwave in the Pacific Northwest in 2021.
The attorneys representing the victims in the Philippines case have invited Shell to respond to their allegations, and said they will file the case with the UK High Court by the end of the year if the two parties do not come to an agreement.
The lawsuit centers on Philippine laws stating that citizens have the right to a healthy environment, and it cites leaked internal documents from Shell that suggest it possessed full knowledge about the negative impact its activities are having on the climate.
Greg Lascelles, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the fact that Shell continued to aggressively expand its fossil fuel extraction operations "knowing the harm they would cause, coupled with deliberately misinforming the public, can be considered acting contrary to certain provisions of Filipino law."
A spokesperson for Shell told The Guardian that it is not fair to blame their company exclusively for the global climate emergency.
"The suggestion that Shell had unique knowledge about climate change is simply not true," they said. "The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has been part of public discussion and scientific research for decades."
One 1988 document from Shell cautioned that "by the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the situation," while another projected that "catastrophic weather events" could eventually trigger lawsuits against governments and oil companies.
"After all, two successive [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports since 1995 have reinforced the human connection to climate change," wrote Shell scenario planners.
Although the lawsuit against Shell is the first to directly link fossil fuel companies to recent climate disasters in the Global South, Climate Home News noted in a Thursday report that many legal experts believe that a ruling earlier this year from a court in Germany "confirmed that climate science can establish legal liability for damage caused by emissions."
Specifically, the court this past May found that companies can be held liable for climate damages, although it dismissed a specific claim from a Peruvian farmer who had sued German energy company RWE for allegedly putting his home at risk of floods due to melting glaciers.
As The Guardian reported at the time, the court ruled that polluters "must bear the costs in proportion to their share of... emissions" if they fail to take "preventative measures" to reduce environmental destruction.
Dozens of survivors of a "super typhoon" that struck the Philippines are suing fossil fuels giant Shell for its role in causing the climate emergency in a landmark lawsuit.
As reported by The Guardian, 66 victims of Typhoon Rai, a 2021 storm that killed more than 400 people and left millions more displaced, filed a lawsuit in the United Kingdom on Wednesday demanding that Shell provide them with financial compensation for their losses.
The Guardian noted that this is the first-ever civil complaint "to directly link polluting companies to deaths and personal injuries that have already happened in the Global South," as most other lawsuits against fossil fuel companies have been focused on potential future risks.
In the US earlier this year, a woman named Misti Leon sued several fossil fuel giants, arguing they were liable for the death of her mother, who died in an extreme heatwave in the Pacific Northwest in 2021.
The attorneys representing the victims in the Philippines case have invited Shell to respond to their allegations, and said they will file the case with the UK High Court by the end of the year if the two parties do not come to an agreement.
The lawsuit centers on Philippine laws stating that citizens have the right to a healthy environment, and it cites leaked internal documents from Shell that suggest it possessed full knowledge about the negative impact its activities are having on the climate.
Greg Lascelles, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the fact that Shell continued to aggressively expand its fossil fuel extraction operations "knowing the harm they would cause, coupled with deliberately misinforming the public, can be considered acting contrary to certain provisions of Filipino law."
A spokesperson for Shell told The Guardian that it is not fair to blame their company exclusively for the global climate emergency.
"The suggestion that Shell had unique knowledge about climate change is simply not true," they said. "The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has been part of public discussion and scientific research for decades."
One 1988 document from Shell cautioned that "by the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the situation," while another projected that "catastrophic weather events" could eventually trigger lawsuits against governments and oil companies.
"After all, two successive [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports since 1995 have reinforced the human connection to climate change," wrote Shell scenario planners.
Although the lawsuit against Shell is the first to directly link fossil fuel companies to recent climate disasters in the Global South, Climate Home News noted in a Thursday report that many legal experts believe that a ruling earlier this year from a court in Germany "confirmed that climate science can establish legal liability for damage caused by emissions."
Specifically, the court this past May found that companies can be held liable for climate damages, although it dismissed a specific claim from a Peruvian farmer who had sued German energy company RWE for allegedly putting his home at risk of floods due to melting glaciers.
As The Guardian reported at the time, the court ruled that polluters "must bear the costs in proportion to their share of... emissions" if they fail to take "preventative measures" to reduce environmental destruction.
