In the aftermath of catastrophic floods that killed nearly 200 people and uprooted half a million lives across southern Brazil in 2024, prosecutors have taken an unprecedented step: suing Shell's Brazilian subsidiary for $108 million, arguing that historical emissions carry historical responsibility. The case rests on a proportional logic — Shell contributed roughly two percent of all greenhouse gases ever released into the atmosphere, and so, prosecutors contend, it must bear two percent of the human cost. This is the first time a national public prosecutor has brought such a claim directly a
Brazil sues Shell for $108M over deadly 2024 floods in climate liability first
Nearly 200 people died and approximately 500,000 were displaced in the April-May 2024 floods in Rio Grande do Sul state.
Major polluters must answer for the losses they help cause
Mark
So Brazil is saying Shell caused the floods because of emissions. How does that actually work legally?
Mimi
They're arguing that Shell's historical greenhouse gas emissions—about two percent of the global total—contributed to climate change, which intensified the rainfall that caused the disaster. They're asking for $108 million based on that proportional responsibility.
Luke
But that's a causal chain. How do you prove that *this specific flood* wouldn't have happened without Shell's emissions? Weather is complex.
Mimi
You don't have to prove the flood wouldn't have happened at all. You're arguing that climate change made it worse, more intense, more deadly. That's what the science shows.
Mark
Has anyone won a case like this before?
Luke
Not yet. German courts left the door open to it last year but rejected the actual claim for compensation. There are cases pending in multiple countries, but no major victory yet.
Mimi
Which is why this Brazilian filing is significant. It's the first time a national public prosecutor—not an NGO or individual—has sued an oil company directly for climate disaster damages.
Mark
What's the $108 million based on?
Mimi
Material damages—destroyed homes, infrastructure—and moral damages, the human cost of loss. The number reflects Shell's two percent share of historical emissions.
Luke
But "moral damages" is tricky to quantify. Different countries define it differently. That could be a vulnerability in the case.
Mark
What happens next?
Mimi
Shell will almost certainly defend itself. The case will move through Brazilian courts. Meanwhile, similar lawsuits are pending in other countries—Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Germany.
Luke
And some countries are actively blocking these cases. New Zealand changed its law to stop one. So the legal landscape is still very much in flux.
O Pulso
- Nearly 200 people died and 500,000 were displaced when catastrophic floods tore through Rio Grande do Sul in April and May of 2024 — a disaster prosecutors now argue was not merely natural.
- Brazilian prosecutors have filed a landmark $108 million lawsuit against Shell's local subsidiary, invoking the company's 2% share of historical global greenhouse gas emissions as the legal basis for its liability.
- For the first time in history, a national public prosecutor — not an NGO or private citizen — has directly sued an oil major for damages caused by a climate disaster, raising the institutional stakes of climate accountability.
- The case demands compensation for both material losses — destroyed homes and infrastructure — and moral damages, insisting that the weight of grief and displacement must also be answered for.
- Similar cases are advancing in Germany, the UK, and Switzerland against Shell, RWE, Holcim, and others, though courts in the US and New Zealand have blocked or rejected comparable claims, leaving the legal frontier deeply contested.
In the aftermath of catastrophic floods that killed nearly 200 people and uprooted half a million lives across southern Brazil in 2024, prosecutors have taken an unprecedented step: suing Shell's Brazilian subsidiary for $108 million, arguing that historical emissions carry historical responsibility. The case rests on a proportional logic — Shell contributed roughly two percent of all greenhouse gases ever released into the atmosphere, and so, prosecutors contend, it must bear two percent of the human cost. This is the first time a national public prosecutor has brought such a claim directly against an oil major, marking a quiet but consequential turn in how humanity may come to reckon with the architects of a warming world.
When torrential rains swept Rio Grande do Sul in April and May of 2024, they left behind nearly 200 dead and half a million people without homes. The destruction was immediate and total. What followed, two years later, is something slower and more deliberate: a lawsuit that asks whether a fossil fuel company can be held responsible not just for what it burned, but for what that burning helped destroy.
Brazilian prosecutors filed suit against Shell's Brazilian subsidiary on Friday, seeking $108 million in damages. Their argument is built on proportion — Shell accounts for roughly two percent of all historical greenhouse gas emissions globally, and that share, they contend, should determine its share of liability for the catastrophe. The claim covers both concrete losses, ruined homes and infrastructure, and the harder-to-measure weight of collective grief. "Major polluters must also answer for the losses they help cause," said Thales Miola, a lawyer with Instituto Preservar, which joined the filing.
What distinguishes this case is not the underlying science, which has long connected fossil fuel emissions to intensifying weather events, but who is making the argument. This is the first time a national public prosecutor has sued an oil major directly for climate disaster damages, a distinction legal scholars say carries real significance for the trajectory of climate litigation worldwide.
Brazil's action joins a growing constellation of similar cases. Typhoon survivors in the Philippines have sued Shell in UK courts. Residents of an Indonesian island are pursuing Holcim in Switzerland. Pakistani farmers have brought claims against RWE and Heidelberg Materials in Germany. The outcomes remain uncertain, and there have been losses — courts in the United States have rejected comparable claims, and New Zealand's government changed its own laws to block a case brought by a Maori activist. The legal ground is still forming. But with each filing, the argument that emissions carry consequences — human, legal, and financial — grows harder to dismiss.
In April and May of 2024, torrential rains swept across southern Brazil with devastating force. The flooding that followed killed nearly 200 people and forced half a million more from their homes across Rio Grande do Sul state. The damage was total and immediate. On Friday, Brazilian prosecutors filed a lawsuit that reframes how the world might hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate disasters.
They are suing Shell's Brazilian subsidiary for $108 million. The claim rests on a calculation: Shell is responsible for roughly two percent of all historical global greenhouse gas emissions. That proportion, prosecutors argue, should determine the company's liability for the catastrophe that unfolded in the south. The lawsuit names both material damages—the destroyed homes, the ruined infrastructure—and moral damages, the weight of loss itself. "This civil suit is aimed at holding the defendant company accountable, in terms of its environmental and climate-related responsibilities, for collective material and moral damages stemming from the extreme weather event," prosecutors wrote in court documents.
What makes this filing unprecedented is not the argument itself—climate scientists have long traced the connection between fossil fuel emissions and intensifying weather—but rather who is making it. This is the first time a national public prosecutor has sued an oil major directly for damages from a climate disaster. Maria Antonia Tigre, director of global climate litigation at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, confirmed the historic nature of the move to news agencies. The lawsuit was filed jointly with Instituto Preservar, a Brazilian environmental organization. Thales Miola, a lawyer with the group, framed the case plainly: "The costs of climate damage should not fall solely on society and on those who lost everything in the tragedy. Major polluters, who contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and to climate change, must also answer for the losses they help cause."
The Brazilian action is part of a broader shift in climate litigation that has been building for years. Around the world, NGOs and lawyers have filed claims attempting to require major polluters to compensate people harmed by climate change in proportion to their emissions. German courts moved toward this principle last year when they heard a case brought by Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya against energy company RWE. Though the courts rejected his claim for compensation, they signaled that holding major emitters liable for climate-related payments remained a viable legal theory. That opening has encouraged similar filings elsewhere.
Philippine victims of Typhoon Odette have sued Shell in UK courts. Residents of Indonesia's Pari island are pursuing a case against cement maker Holcim in Switzerland. Pakistani farmers affected by devastating 2022 floods have brought claims against RWE and Heidelberg Materials in Germany. The cases are pending, and the outcomes remain uncertain. There have been setbacks. Climate groups have lost lawsuits against oil companies in the United States. In New Zealand, the government changed the law specifically to block a lawsuit brought by Maori activist Mike Smith against six domestic companies, though he has pledged to continue fighting. The legal landscape is uneven, the precedents still forming. What Brazil's prosecutors have done is add weight to one side of the scale—the side that says companies that emit greenhouse gases bear responsibility not just for the gas itself, but for the storms and floods and displacement that follow.
Citações Notáveis
The costs of climate damage should not fall solely on society and on those who lost everything in the tragedy. Major polluters must also answer for the losses they help cause.— Thales Miola, lawyer at Instituto Preservar
This is the first time a national public prosecutor is suing an oil major for a climate disaster.— Maria Antonia Tigre, director of global climate litigation at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em France 24 ↗
Climate & Environment