An East Anglian man who lost his home to coastal erosion has lost his high court challenge against the government’s climate adaptation plans.
Kevin Jordan was one of three claimants who argued the government’s plans for adapting to the existing and predicted impacts of climate change, known as the National Adaptation Programme 3 (NAP3), were insufficient and unlawful.
A judge at the Royal Courts of Justice in London denied their claim on Friday.
Will Rundle, the head of legal at Friends of the Earth, a co-claimant in the case, said: “Friends of the Earth’s legal team will study the detail of this judgment before we decide whether to lodge an appeal. Regardless of this judgment the national adaptation programme is hopelessly inadequate and is failing us all.
“A robust and comprehensive adaptation plan is urgently needed to help protect us from increasingly severe storms, floods and heatwaves – particularly marginalised groups, such as older and disabled people, and those living in areas most at risk from climate change.”
The judgment followed a hearing at the court three months ago in which Jordan and a third co-claimant, Doug Paulley, argued that each had suffered harm as a result of climate breakdown.
Paulley, a disability rights activist, has a number of health conditions that are aggravated by the high temperatures of intensifying summer heatwaves caused by the climate crisis.
Jordan, who is also disabled, lost his home in Hemsby, Norfolk, shortly before last Christmas, when authorities ruled it must be demolished because it was in danger of falling into the North Sea.
The two men alleged that NAP3 was so deficient that it breached their human rights to life, home and possessions, and that they had been discriminated against on account of their vulnerable situations.
Their lawyer, David Wolfe KC, had said their cases were representative of “the situation that other people will be in”, and that rather than setting “a generic aim simply to reduce risks” for such groups, ministers had to set outcomes to address specific risks.
They had called for a new, robust and comprehensive adaptation programme that better protects people and communities from the challenges arising from global heating.
Responding to the verdict, Jordan said: “This is an extremely disappointing judgment. Without a tougher set of government policies to protect us, more people will face the horror of seeing their homes, lives and livelihoods threatened by the growing impacts of our rapidly changing climate.
“It’s bad enough that communities like mine have already lost so much through the lack of foresight and planning for the foreseeable effects of climate breakdown. I don’t want anyone else to endure what we’ve been through. But many undoubtedly will unless the government strengthens its adaptation plans.”
Paulley said: “Climate breakdown threatens us all, but disabled people are disproportionally affected and are always among those who bear the brunt when disaster strikes. The lack of adequate protection in the government’s climate adaptation plan means more disabled people will suffer and die as the impacts of climate change accelerate.”
