It is double tragedy for Kevin Jordan, an East Anglian man who lost his home to coastal erosion as he has now also lost his high court challenge against the government’s climate adaptation plans.
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.”
Read also: Campaigners call for steeper cuts to UK greenhouse gas emissions
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.
Story was adapted from the Guardian.
