By james art Activist Kevin Jordan and disability campaigner Doug Powley, along with environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth (FoE), challenged the former Tory government’s National Adaptation Program (NAP) from July 2023 at a hearing earlier this year.
Lawyers for FoE; Mr. Jordan, who lost his home to coastal erosion; and Mr. Paulley, whose health problems are aggravated by the intense heat; told the court in July that the plan was “inadequate” because it failed to properly address 61 climate change risks and should be scrapped.
But on Friday, Mr Justice Chamberlain dismissed the claim, saying there was no “error of law”.
After the decision, Mr Paulley, who lives in a care home and has health problems made worse by the increasingly hot summer temperatures, said: “This is extremely disappointing. The government has once again succeeded in selling the disabled down the river.
“Climate deterioration threatens us all, but people with disabilities are disproportionately 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.
“Despite this disappointing outcome, I am glad to have been a part of this incredible collaboration between environmentalists, people with disabilities and excellent advocates in the ongoing fight for a safer future.”
Mr Jordan was left homeless shortly before Christmas 2023 after his house in Hemsby, Norfolk, was destroyed when coastal erosion put it in serious danger of falling into the sea.
After Friday’s decision, he called on the government to “strengthen its adaptation plans”.
He said: “This is an extremely disappointing decision.
“Without a stronger set of government policies to protect us, more people will face the horror of seeing their homes, lives and livelihoods threatened by the increasing impacts of our rapidly changing climate.
“It’s bad enough that communities like mine have already lost so much due to a lack of foresight and planning for the foreseeable effects of climate collapse.
“I don’t want anyone else to go through what we went through. But many undoubtedly will, unless the government steps up its adaptation plans.
A hearing in London was told that the NAP is required every five years under the Climate Change Act 2008.
David Woolf KC, for campaigners, told the court in written submissions that the plan “perpetuated” ministers’ “history of climate adaptation failure” and failed to address the risks posed by high temperatures, coastal flooding, erosion and extreme weather events, and other challenges caused by changing climate conditions.
It also argued that the Government had failed to consider the risks to the implementation of the policies and proposals in the NAP, with the result that the plan leaves the British people, particularly the vulnerable, “subject to specific threats or adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health , well-being and quality of life”.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) opposed the challenge, with Mark Westmorland Smith KC, for the department, saying in written arguments that the campaigners’ case was based on “fundamental factual errors” and was an “unfair characterization” of the approach of ministers.
He said the environment secretary – a role currently held by Labour’s Steve Reid – had a “broad discretion” over NAP targets and was “politically accountable to Parliament for them”.
Mr Westmoreland Smith said consideration of “uncertainties” to address risks was “hard-wired” into the NAP and “clearly taken into account” and that “implementation-related factors such as the current state of policy, funding, timeframes and limitations and attainability of actions were considered throughout’.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Chamberlain said the government had considered the “equality impacts” of the plan and the risks of implementing it.
He said: “The evidence establishes that delivery risk, in the sense of uncertainty about whether particular proposals and policies will achieve what they set out to do, has been addressed at various stages.”
Will Rundle, head of legal at FoE, said he would “study the details” of the decision before deciding whether to apply for an appeal, describing the NAP as “hopelessly inadequate”.
He said: “A robust and comprehensive adaptation plan is urgently needed to help us protect ourselves from increasingly severe storms, floods and heatwaves – particularly marginalized groups such as the elderly and disabled, and those living in areas most at risk from climate change.
“Labour must deliver on its pre-election promise to improve resilience and preparedness by urgently devising and implementing a much tougher climate adaptation agenda to prepare the UK for the huge challenges that a dangerously warming planet will bring – most those affected will participate in its planning.”
Defra has been approached for comment.