UK climate strategy under scrutiny in landmark lawsuit

Published in: 23/07/2024 – 03:19Modified: 23/07/2024 – 03:17

3 minutes

Environmental activists Friends of the Earth and two men whose lives have been affected by rising temperatures brought the two-day case to the High Court in London.

The case is the first of its kind in the UK and comes after criticism of the government’s climate 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 the UK’s National Adaptation Programme, which aims to protect against rising temperatures, flooding and coastal erosion, is inadequate and unlawful.

“For the first time in British legal history, the Supreme Court will have to determine whether government policies to adapt to climate change are lawful, including whether our clients’ human rights have been breached,” said lawyer Rowan Smith.

“This is truly a watershed case for climate change that will likely have far-reaching consequences for generations to come.”

The latest National Adaptation Programme (NAP3) is valid from July 2023 and must be renewed every five years.

The document sets out the government’s goals for adapting to climate change, as well as plans and strategies to achieve them and protect communities that may be affected by these changes.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs will argue that in developing the policy the Conservative government, which lost the general election earlier this month, failed to comply with the Climate Change Act 2008.

The Act underpins the UK’s approach to addressing and responding to climate change, requiring it to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and adapt to threats.

‘Insufficient’

The independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which advises the government, has called for NAP3 to be strengthened urgently, warning in March that it “falls far short of what is required”.

One of the two co-plaintiffs in the case, Kevin Jordan, 71, saw his seaside home in Norfolk, eastern England, destroyed by coastal erosion but was never compensated by the state.

The second, 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 greater risk of serious injury.

Both organisations have called NAP3 “inadequate” and infringing on the rights of marginalised groups such as older people and people with disabilities.

In April, the European Court of Human Rights issued a historic ruling against Switzerland, finding that the country was not doing enough to combat climate change.

The lawsuit was filed by the Elders for Climate Protection organization – 2,500 women with an average age of 73 – who condemned the “shortcomings of the Swiss authorities” in the field of climate protection, which could “seriously harm” their health.

The ruling was seen as potentially forcing other governments to adopt more ambitious climate policies.

In Britain, where temperatures could top 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) for the first time in 2022, the Conservative government has backtracked on its climate commitments, including by postponing targets to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2035.

It also awarded new licences to explore for North Sea oil and gas.

The CCC last week called on the new Labour government to take action “quickly” to get the country back on track to meet its 2030 climate targets.

“Currently, credible plans cover only one-third of the emission reductions required to achieve the 2030 target,” the statement reads.

After coming to power, the Labour Party lifted a ban on onshore wind farms and said that approving a new coal mine in the UK was a “legal error”.

© 2024 AFP