Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
A Filipino mother says her family had to “swim to save their lives” as a typhoon destroyed their home during 2021. Storm is one of the survivors of the lawsuit shell In UKin a case that would likely test whether fossil fuel companies could be held liable for specific climate disasters
More than 100 Filipinos are involved in the claim filed at the Royal Courts of Justice in London Super Typhoon Rai , Locally known as Odette – which struck the country in December 2021, killing nearly 400 people and devastating coastal communities in Central Visayas, one of the Philippines’ three main island groups.
The lawsuit seeks compensation for deaths, injuries and destroyed homes, arguing that Shell’s greenhouse gas emissions helped drive climate change in ways that made hurricanes more likely and more devastating.
Supporters say it is the first major international civil case to directly link an oil and gas company’s emissions to personal injury and damage that has already been done in the global South.
One of the contenders is Trixie Alley, who lives on a small island in the central Philippines, who was struck by Odette on the evening of December 16, 2021.
talking to Independent, Ms Alley described how the storm became more intense than anything her community had ever experienced before.
“We typically experience signal number one, number two,” he said, referring to his country’s hurricane-warning system. “But this was signal number five, and we hadn’t experienced it yet. So we decided not to evacuate and stayed on the island.”
Ms Alley said that as the storm approached, the sea began rising rapidly around her family’s home.
“We saw that the waves were high, going over the roof,” he said. “The water came through the window, through the wood, through the door.”
When they tried to escape, the water rose.
“My father said to hold our hands together,” she said. “If we die, we will die together.”
Within moments, he remembered, they were no longer able to walk.
“We can’t walk, so we have to swim,” Ms. Alley said. “Swim anywhere in big waves, strong winds, heavy rain. Yes, we swam to save our lives.”
Ms Alley said her home was destroyed and the isolation made it difficult to survive in the days that followed.
“Because we live on an island, we are isolated. There is no help for days – no food, no water,” she said. “All we had left were the clothes we were wearing.”
“You feel very depressed, hopeless and helpless,” he said. “We have no insurance for our homes, for our livelihoods. So we have nothing.”
The legal case seeks to turn experiences like Ms. Alley’s into a damages claim, arguing that Shell’s contributions to global warming have materially increased the risks faced by communities like hers.
Danilo Garrido, a lawyer for the advocacy group Greenpeace, told Independent The claimants will argue that “Shell is responsible for their contribution to said harm”, noting that the company was responsible for “over two percent of all historical global carbon emissions”.
“The lawsuit will emphasize that the defendants’ past and present carbon emissions and their deliberate deceptions have contributed to anthropogenic climate change, which has made cyclones like Odette more intense and unpredictable,” Mr. Garrido said.
He said the claim would also argue that Shell “has been aware of their role in climate change as recently as 1965, yet continued to increase investments in fossil fuels”.
A central pillar of the case is climate attribution science, research that examines how climate change alters the likelihood and intensity of specific extreme weather events.
Mr Garrido pointed to a 2025 analysis by climate scientists at Imperial College London and the University of Sheffield, which found that “both extreme rainfall and wind speeds over the Philippines due to typhoons like Odette have become significantly more likely and intense due to anthropogenic climate change”.
Although the suit is filed in the UK, it applies Philippine law, reflecting the fact that the damages occurred there.
Mr Garrido said it followed legal principles established under the Rome II regulation, and targeted Shell as its UK-domiciled parent company rather than its local subsidiaries.
Legal observers said the case may be based on recent UK court rulings that have allowed overseas communities to bring claims against British-based multinationals for damages suffered abroad, potentially reducing the procedural barriers that once kept such cases out of English courts.
This claim is being supported by many civil society groups, who argue that advances in science now make it possible to link corporate emissions to real-world harm with much greater confidence than in the past.
Shell dismissed the lawsuit as “baseless claims”.
“This will not help tackle climate change or reduce emissions,” a company spokesperson said. Independent,
“The suggestion that Shell had unique knowledge about climate change is simply not true. This issue and how to deal with it has been part of public discussion and scientific research for many decades.”
“This claim also ignores the benefits of energy and the choices made over decades by governments, businesses and consumers that have shaped our energy system,” the spokesperson said. “At Shell, we are reducing emissions from our operations and helping customers reduce emissions as we deliver the critical energy they need today and in the future.”
Shell had previously argued that the majority of its reported emissions came from the use of its products by consumers rather than from its own operations.
For Ms. Alley, the issue is as much about compensation as it is about accountability. He said, “If we remain silent, if we do nothing today, what will happen to our future, especially mine? I have children.”
He said frequent and intense typhoons in the Philippines have left the Philippines a constant threat.
“In the past, superstorms were very rare in the Philippines,” he said. “But now it seems normal. The frequency, the intensity, is really not normal.”