London: The British government faced an unprecedented legal challenge on Tuesday over alleged failures to protect people, property and infrastructure from the likely impacts of climate change.
Environmental campaigners Friends of the Earth and two men whose lives have been affected by rising temperatures filed a two-day case at the High Court in London.
The case is the first of its kind in Britain and comes after criticism of the government’s climate change risk management strategy and a landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice against the Swiss state.
Friends of the Earth and co-plaintiffs will argue that Britain’s National Adaptation Program to protect against extreme temperatures, flooding or coastal erosion is inadequate and illegal.
“For the first time in UK legal history, the High Court will have to decide whether the Government’s climate change adaptation policy is lawful, including whether our clients’ human rights have been breached,” said lawyer Rowan Smith.
“This is a truly significant case of climate change that is likely to have far-reaching consequences for future generations.”
The latest National Adaptation Program (NAP3) dates from July 2023 and must be renewed every five years.
It sets out the government’s climate adaptation goals, as well as plans and policies to meet them and protect communities that could be affected.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs will say that the Conservative government, defeated in the general election earlier this month, failed to comply with the Climate Change Act 2008 in developing the policy.
The Act forms the basis for the UK’s approach to addressing and responding to climate change, which requires carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced and to adapt to the risks.
The independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which advises the government, has called for NAP3 to be strengthened without delay, warning in March that it “falls far short of what is required”.
One of the two co-defendants in the case, Kevin Jordan, 71, saw his seaside home demolished on the Norfolk coast in East Anglia due to coastal erosion, but he never received state compensation.
The other, disability campaigner Doug Palley, lives in a care home in northern England and says the warmer summers are affecting his health and putting him at increased risk of serious harm.
Both described NAP3 as “inadequate” and infringing on the rights of marginalized groups such as the elderly and disabled.
In April, the European Court of Human Rights issued a historic ruling against Switzerland because it believed it was not doing enough to tackle climate change.
The case was brought by Elders for Climate Protection – 2,500 women with an average age of 73 – who denounced the “failure of the Swiss authorities” to protect the climate, which could “seriously damage” their health.
The decision was seen as a potential push for other governments to adopt more ambitious climate policies.
In Britain, where temperatures are set to exceed 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) for the first time in 2022, the Conservative government has rowed its climate commitments, including pushing back targets banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2035.
It also granted new licenses for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea.
The CCC last week urged the new Labor government to act “quickly” to get the country back on track to meet its 2030 climate targets.
“Only a third of the emissions reductions needed to meet the 2030 target are currently covered by credible plans,” it said.
Since coming to power, Labor has lifted a ban on offshore wind projects and said the approval of a new UK coal mine was a “mistake of the law”.
UK climate strategy under scrutiny at landmark court case
