the law will hold them liable for their actions.

法律將要求他們為自己的行為負責。

But who would you take to court over storms, floods and droughts?

但是，你會因為風暴、洪水和乾旱將誰告上法庭？

This episode will show the ways in which the law

本集將展示法律的方式

is helping us all deal with this increasing problem.

正在幫助我們大家處理這個日益嚴重的問題。

The Peruvian farmer taking on a German energy giant over pollution...

祕魯農民因汙染問題與德國能源巨頭交涉...

And how the world around us might get a whole load more legal protection...

以及我們周圍的世界如何可能得到更多的法律保護......

Humans have been polluting the world for a long time.

長期以來，人類一直在汙染世界。

So, how can you take action about something like climate change?

那麼，你怎樣才能對氣候變化這樣的事情采取行動呢？

Who would you blame?

你會責備誰呢？

It's not any one person, company, country, or government's fault...

這不是任何一個人、公司、國家或政府的錯......。

...or is it?

...或者是嗎？

This is Saúl Luciano Lliuya.

這是薩烏爾-盧西亞諾-廖亞。

He's a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide,

他是一名祕魯農民和登山向導。

and for years he has watched a glacier, in nearby Huaraz,

多年來，他一直在附近的瓦拉斯觀看冰川。

melt due to climate change.

氣候變化導致的融化。

So, he decided to do something

是以，他決定做一些事情

and chose to sue a German energy company, RWE.

並選擇起訴一家德國能源公司--RWE。

He's asking for around €17,000

他要價約17,000歐元

to help him cope with climate change.

以幫助他應對氣候變化。

It's a number based on the share of manmade emissions

這是一個基於人工排放份額的數字

he claims RWE is responsible for.

他聲稱RWE公司應對此負責。

RWE say there's no direct link

RWE說沒有直接聯繫

between them and the melting glaciers.

他們和融化的冰川之間。

His hope is that his case would make it easier

他希望他的案子能讓人更容易接受

for thousands or even millions of others like him

為成千上萬甚至數百萬像他一樣的人

to do the same to protect their homes.

以此來保護他們的家園。

And that could mean energy companies are forced

而這可能意味著能源公司被迫

to change the way they do business,

改變他們做生意的方式。

or risk losing billions of dollars in court.

或者冒著在法庭上損失數十億美元的風險。

RWE say there's no direct link

RWE說沒有直接聯繫

between emissions in Germany and melting glaciers in Peru.

德國的排放和祕魯的冰川融化之間。

Noah Walker-Crawford, from the University of Manchester,

諾亞-沃克-克勞福德，來自曼徹斯特大學。

has worked with Saúl's case.

曾參與過薩烏爾的案件。

He explained why Saúl is taking action.

他解釋了為什麼薩烏爾要採取行動。

Saúl can see the impacts of climate change in Peru

薩烏爾可以看到祕魯氣候變化的影響

every day with melting glaciers,

每天都有融化的冰川。

but he feels like it's not him

但他覺得那不是他

or it's not Peruvians who have caused this problem,

或者說，造成這個問題的不是祕魯人。

but it's rather big companies in other parts of the world,

但在世界其他地方是相當大的公司。

who've caused climate change through their pollution,

他們通過汙染造成了氣候變化。

and that's why he's taking this German company, RWE, to court,

這就是為什麼他要把這家德國公司RWE告上法庭。

arguing that they've made a big contribution to climate change,

辯稱他們對氣候變化做出了很大貢獻。

which has caused big impacts in Peru.

這在祕魯造成了很大的影響。

Saúl argues that RWE and other companies

Saúl認為，RWE和其他公司

have caused climate change, which is affecting him:

造成了氣候變化，這對他有影響。

the melting glaciers are partly their fault.

冰川融化在一定程度上是他們的錯。

What kind of laws is he using?

他使用的是什麼樣的法律？

To try and hold RWE responsible,

試圖追究RWE的責任。

what Saúl is doing with his lawyers

薩烏爾和他的律師在做什麼

is basically applying neighbourhood law.

基本上是應用鄰里關係法。

So, they're using the kind of law you'd use

所以，他們使用的是你會使用的那種法律

to resolve conflicts between different neighbours.

以解決不同鄰居之間的衝突。

So, basically Saúl is saying to RWE:

是以，基本上Saúl是在對RWE說。

'You're my neighbour in a global context,

'在全球範圍內，你是我的鄰居。

because you're causing me harm or risk of harm via –

因為你通過......給我帶來傷害或傷害的風險。

through climate change, and as a neighbour,

通過氣候變化，以及作為一個鄰居。

  you need to take responsibility for this harm you're causing me.'

你需要對你給我造成的這種傷害負責。

Saúl is using similar law to the kind used

薩烏爾使用的是類似的法律。

to solve arguments between neighbours –

解決鄰里之間的爭執 --

just in a global way, rather than locally.

只是在全球範圍內，而不是在在地。

So, why could this one case be important?

那麼，為什麼這一個案子會很重要呢？

So, this lawsuit is obviously only against one company

是以，這起訴訟顯然只針對一家公司

and it's over a small amount of money, around $20,000,

而且是在一個小的金額上，大約20,000美元。

which is small change for a big company like RWE.

這對像RWE這樣的大公司來說是個小變化。

But what this is really about is about setting a precedent.

但這真正的目的是要建立一個先例。

So, about developing legal tools

那麼，關於開發法律工具

to hold big greenhouse gas emitters, big companies, responsible.

讓大的溫室氣體排放者、大公司負責。

And so if Saúl wins this case against RWE,

是以，如果Saúl贏得對RWE的這個案子。

other people who are affected by climate change

其他受氣候變化影響的人

could use a similar legal approach

可以採用類似的法律方法

to sue lots of other companies in lots of other countries.

在很多其他國家起訴很多其他公司。

This case could set a precedent:

這個案子可能會成為一個先例。

other people would copy Saúl and take on many other companies.

其他人會模仿Saúl，並對許多其他公司下手。

So, what could I do, if I had a case like this?

那麼，如果我遇到這樣的情況，我可以做什麼？

If you want to take action on climate change,

如果你想對氣候變化採取行動。

if you want to go to court,

如果你想上法庭。

that's a very difficult and complicated approach,

這是一個非常困難和複雜的方法。

because it costs a lot of money and it takes a long time.

因為這要花很多錢，而且需要很長的時間。

And actually what we really need is political solutions on climate change,

而實際上我們真正需要的是關於氣候變化的政治解決方案。

because the solution isn't going to be that everyone

因為解決方案不會是每個人都

who's affected will take a big energy company to court.

受影響的人將把一家大型能源公司告上法庭。

And what these kinds of lawsuits do, like Saúl's lawsuit,

而這類訴訟的作用，如薩烏爾的訴訟。

is that they put pressure on politicians to find long term solutions.

是他們對政治家施加壓力，以找到長期的解決方案。

Going to court takes a lot of time and money in a case like this.

在這樣的情況下，上法庭需要大量的時間和金錢。

Noah wants political solutions to climate change.

諾亞希望通過政治手段解決氣候變化問題。

Saúl's case shows an interesting approach:

薩烏爾的案例顯示了一種有趣的方法。

he's trying to get money he thinks he's owed for damages to his life.

他試圖獲得他認為自己應得的生活損失費。

But what if you just want to protect the environment itself?

但如果你只是想保護環境本身呢？

Laws are agreements between people or groups of people.

法律是人們或群體之間的協議。

By living in a society, I've agreed

通過生活在一個社會中，我已經同意了

that if I break the rules, I get punished.

如果我違反規則，我就會受到懲罰。

We've seen that lawyers are using laws which give rights to people

我們已經看到，律師正在利用賦予人們權利的法律

to protect the environment.

以保護環境。

But that's complicated.

但這很複雜。

What if I want help with a problem like melting ice caps?

如果我想幫助解決像冰蓋融化這樣的問題怎麼辦？

It's hard to say exactly who's being harmed

很難說到底誰受到了傷害

and how much they're being harmed,

以及他們受到的傷害有多大。

so that makes it hard for lawyers to take action.

是以，這使得律師很難採取行動。

Could that all be about to change?

這一切是否會發生變化？

We spoke to lawyer Philippe Sands,

我們採訪了律師Philippe Sands。

who's part of a group that wants the international community

他是一個希望國際社會

to set up a new crime called 'ecocide'.

確立了一種新的罪行，稱為 "生態滅絕"。

It would sit alongside things like war crimes

它將與戰爭罪等事項並列

and crimes against humanity.

和危害人類罪。

It would directly protect the environment.

它將直接保護環境。

He explained more.

他解釋了更多。

And our definition of 'ecocide' is unlawful or wanton acts,

而我們對'生態滅絕'的定義是非法或肆意的行為。

which a person commits in the knowledge

一個人在明知的情況下犯下的罪行

that there is a substantial likelihood

有很大的可能性

of severe damage to the environment,

對環境的嚴重破壞。

which is also widespread or long-term.

這也是廣泛的或長期的。

So, the heart of it is severe damage to the environment.

所以，它的核心是對環境的嚴重破壞。

'Ecocide' would be breaking the law in a way that meant

'生態滅絕'將是以一種意味著違反法律的方式

doing something that seriously damages the environment.

做一些嚴重破壞環境的事情。

Why aren't our current laws good enough?

為什麼我們目前的法律還不夠好？

The law tends to lag behind. It follows; it doesn't lead.

法律往往是落後的。它緊隨其後；它並不上司。

And environmental consciousness is a new thing.

而環境意識是一個新事物。

So, we're living today with the laws of the past

所以，我們今天生活在過去的法律中

and this project, defining the crime of 'ecocide',

和這個項目，定義了 "生態滅絕 "的罪行。

is about updating our laws to the current situation.

是關於更新我們的法律以適應當前形勢。

It takes time for laws to be written.

法律的制定需要時間。

Environmental awareness is relatively new;

環境意識是相對較新的。

the law needs to catch up.

法律需要跟上。

So, does he think 'ecocide' will become law?

那麼，他是否認為'生態滅絕'會成為法律？

It will now be for states, for governments,

現在它將是為國家、為政府服務的。

to decide what to do with it.

以決定如何處理它。

If five or six governments decide they want to run with this idea,

如果有五、六個政府決定要用這個想法來運作。

I think it is likely to take off. My sense is that

我認為它很可能會起飛。我的感覺是，

there will be governments who want to run with this idea,

會有政府想用這個想法來運作。

so I'm quietly optimistic.

所以我默默地感到樂觀。

International laws need governments to agree to them.

國際法需要各國政府的同意。

If six or seven governments agree, it might be possible.

如果六個或七個政府同意，這也許是可能的。

So, what could stop 'ecocide' becoming a crime?

那麼，什麼可以阻止 "生態滅絕 "成為一種犯罪？

There will be a number of countries

將有一些國家

and a number of corporations, who will be very worried that,

和一些公司，他們會非常擔心，。

  if a crime of ecocide becomes part of international law,

如果生態滅絕罪成為國際法的一部分。

they will be targeted.

他們將成為目標。

And so the objections will come, I suspect,

是以，我懷疑反對意見將會到來。

from countries and corporations who benefit the most

來自受益最大的國家和公司

from widespread and severe damage to the environment.

從對環境的廣泛和嚴重破壞。

Companies and countries who damage the environment most

破壞環境最多的公司和國家

might oppose it becoming international law.

可能會反對它成為國際法。

So, we've seen how some people can take on the people

是以，我們已經看到了一些人是如何對人民下手的

they think are behind climate change,

他們認為氣候變化的背後。

in an effort to get widespread change.

以期獲得廣泛的改變。

And if the crime of 'ecocide' enters international law,

而如果 "生態滅絕 "的罪行進入國際法。

courts could have whole new powers

法院可以擁有全新的權力

to protect us and our world.

以保護我們和我們的世界。