Landmark Lawsuit Challenges Britain’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan

In a landmark climate case, Friends of the Earth and two people whose lives have been severely affected by the changing climate are suing the government of the United Kingdom over its failure to safeguard people, property and infrastructure against foreseeable effects of the climate crisis, a press release from Friends of the Earth said.

At issue is the Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3), which claimants say did not set proper objectives for its climate adaptation strategy. Published last year, the plan articulates what the government will do to adapt to the impacts of human-caused climate change.

The purpose of the program is to protect people from the dangers of extreme weather, high temperatures and coastal flooding, reported Reuters.

Kevin Jordan, one of the plaintiffs, lost his Norfolk home when it was destroyed because it was in danger of plummeting into the sea due to coastal erosion caused by climate change-induced storms and sea-level rise, Friends of the Earth said.

“I was told my house would be safe for a century, but 14 years after moving in it had to be demolished due to the accelerating rate of coastal erosion,” Jordan said in the press release. “The government’s adaptation plans are completely inadequate for dealing with the threat of climate change to people and the economy. The National Adaptation Programme should be ripped up and replaced with a new plan that better protects us all from the escalating impacts of the climate crisis.”

Another plaintiff, Doug Paulley, has multiple health issues which have been made worse by extreme summer temperatures that have put him at mounting risk of serious harm, in addition to causing him great distress and discomfort. The risks he has faced due to these climate-induced challenges include a nervous system impairment which has led to several strokes, a heart condition and diabetes.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Friends of the Earth (@friends_earth)

“Disabled people are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change, but once again they have been badly let down by an adaptation plan that completely fails to address the particular – and often severe – threats we face from extreme weather like flooding and heatwaves, and wider impacts such as power cuts during severe storms,” Paulley said in the press release. “The lack of planning makes me fearful that in an emergency disabled people won’t be properly protected. We urgently need a new adaptation programme that recognises the acute threat disabled people face and includes proper planning to protect them, such as mandatory care home procedures for protecting residents from flooding and extreme heatwaves.”

Plaintiffs also make the argument that claimants’ human rights were breached by the NAP3. Marginalized groups like older and disabled people — as well as those in places at greatest risk from climate change — are disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis and governmental failure to come up with a lawful or credible plan to keep them safe. They also argue that the government should have properly examined its adaptation plans’ equality impacts.

The 2008 Climate Change Act requires the government to produce and carry out a National Adaptation Programme every five years.

“Last week, the Climate Change Committee called on ministers to ‘strengthen’ the NAP, having previously warned that the current programme ‘falls far short of what is required. Evidence of the UK’s inadequate response to worsening climate impacts continues to mount,’” the press release said.

Friends of the Earth is asking the government to make a commitment to introduce a “robust and comprehensive NAP” that aligns with advice from the Climate Change Committee.

“For the first time in UK legal history, the High Court will have to determine whether the government’s policy to adapt to climate change is lawful, including as to whether our clients’ human rights have been breached. This is a truly landmark climate change case, which is likely to have far reaching implications for generations to come. We look forward to presenting our arguments as forcefully as we can at the hearing,” said Rowan Smith, a lawyer with London law firm Leigh Day, in the press release.