Celia Hatton

It's a very, very carbon intensive process.

And that's from two reasons.

The way you gather your materials, mainly limestone, and put them in huge kilns, which are treated to really high temperatures.

And that heating is usually done using fossil fuels.

So that releases emissions.

But on top of that, the chemical reaction that takes place inside also releases carbon dioxide.

I can understand it's an unarguable case as far as scientists are concerned that man-made climate change is leading to terrible effects on people's lives right now.

And this is an island in Indonesia which is suffering and is at greater risk.

But is it clear what legal hurdles the plaintiffs will need to surmount to prove that this particular Swiss cement company is responsible for...

the misery that awaits them.

And they're doing that by saying, look, Holcim has generated this amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

These emissions are a certain proportion of global emissions that has contributed to climate change and climate change is what is affecting us.

And they've got a growing body of evidence to be able to back up those claims.

Now, various people have tried to make that case in court, but no one's yet succeeded.

So we don't know yet if a court will buy that argument.

But we know that there have been several legal cases in other countries where courts have shown themselves to be quite sympathetic to the principle and suggested that the reasoning is pretty sound.

In addition to seeking damages, I understand that the plaintiffs are demanding a greater reduction in the company's greenhouse gas emissions.

I mean, Holcim has given us a statement today saying that it's fully committed to reaching net zero.

by 2050, and it's shown its commitment over the last two decades.

Presumably, that is going to be central to their arguments, although, in fact, I think they're also appealing against whether it is an admissible case.