The trial of Hugues Falys, a farmer from Hainaut, against TotalEnergies has begun before the Commercial Court of Tournai. At the beginning of 2024, with the support of Greenpeace and others, the farmer sued the French multinational for his role in climate change.
The first climate case brought by a citizen against a multinational in Belgium is also attracting international attention. The dominant framing is David vs Goliath with a generally sympathetic tone towards Falys, while still including TotalEnergies’ defense.
Victim of extreme climate events
Falys is a pioneer of the agro-ecological transition. Still, in recent years, the organic farmer from Lessenbos (Bois-de-Lessines) has had to deal with various extreme weather events, from stationary thunderstorms to dry summers, with severe, damaging consequences.
He had to reduce his herd of Charolais cows, which he raised for organic meat, and his yields from grains, protein crops, and vegetables also declined. Falys, who will stop farming at the end of the year because the owner is taking over land that was leased mainly, wants to hold TotalEnergies accountable in court for the yield losses and the insecurity of his livelihood.
Compensation for actual and moral damages
Falys’ lawyers, supported by three NGOs, Fian Belgium, Greenpeace, and the League for Human Rights, are seeking €130,000 in damages for the damage caused by the weather conditions on his farm. In addition to moral damages, a symbolic euro in damages has also been requested for future material damages, “since the reduction of its herd will still have consequences that we cannot quantify.”
However, suppose Falys is awarded a significant amount in damages for the damage suffered. In that case, he will donate the entire amount to Farm for Good, an association of farms committed to agroecology.
Moratorium on investment in fossil fuel projects
Furthermore, the plaintiffs seek to compel TotalEnergies, Belgium’s largest oil refinery and distributor, to adopt a credible transition plan that includes a moratorium on investments in fossil fuel projects, a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and a 75% reduction in oil and gas production by 2040. Regarding these prohibitions, the defense requested a fine of one million euros per month of delay.
In their pleas, the lawyers, who also referred to the fact that TotalEnergies was already discussing the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate in internal documents in 1971, also emphasized the recent conviction of TotalEnergies by the Paris court for “greenwashing” and the appeal proceedings won by “Climate Case/Klimaatzaak” in 2023. It condemns the Belgian federal state and the Brussels and Flemish regions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030.
No legal basis, says TotalEnergies
TotalEnergies’ lawyers are scheduled to present their arguments next Wednesday. However, the energy giant, according to Greenpeace, “on of the 21 fossil fuel companies responsible for more than a third of global greenhouse gas emissions”, has already made it clear that it does not consider the lawsuit to be legitimate.
In their defense, TotalEnergies wants to demonstrate that the company strictly complies with national and European legislation. According to the multinational, the lawsuit amounts to assigning individual responsibility to a single company that represents just under 2% of the oil and gas sector and is not active in the coal sector.
“For more than a century, the energy system as we know it has made great things possible, economic and social progress,” said Sébastien Champagne, who defends the multinational. “Of course, the system needs to be adapted today, and these greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced. TotalEnergies is doing its part and has a transition plan to reduce emissions.”
International attention
The case is also receiving international media attention, where Falys’ battle against TotalEnergies is mainly described as the Farmer case and a serious, symbolically important climate case, with a strong David-vs-Goliath narrative but with cautious expectations about the legal outcome.
Among other things, AP points out that nearly 100 cases have been brought against big oil companies worldwide over the last two decades, but so far none have forced them to pay for climate damage. At the same time, it is also pointed out that TotalEnergies is a repeat-player defendant with a problematic record. However, most straight-news pieces still include the statement that it is cutting emissions and investing in greener energy.
