Two British citizens have filed a historic legal case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), accusing the UK government of violating their fundamental rights through its failure to adequately protect vulnerable populations from the impacts of climate change.
The plaintiffs, Doug Paulley and Kevin Jordan, claim the government’s third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3) is “dangerously insufficient” in addressing the real-world effects of rising temperatures and extreme weather. Their case marks the first time UK nationals have directly challenged the government’s climate adaptation policies under international human rights law.
Doug Paulley, a disability rights activist, says that rising temperatures exacerbate his health conditions, creating life-threatening risks during increasingly frequent heatwaves. Kevin Jordan, a former fisherman, lost his coastal home in Norfolk to flooding and storm surges that he believes were worsened by years of inaction on climate resilience.
“We are not just statistics in a policy document—we’re people with lives at stake,” said Paulley. “The government has a duty to protect us, and it has failed.”
Their legal team argues that the government’s adaptation plan, published last year, falls short of scientific standards, ignores vulnerable communities, and breaches Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantee the right to life and respect for private and family life.
Environmental groups have hailed the lawsuit as a wake-up call for the UK’s lagging climate adaptation strategies. “This is about justice for those who are already on the front lines of the crisis,” said Sam Knight of Climate Action UK. “Climate change isn’t future-tense—it’s happening now, and governments must act accordingly.”
The UK government has defended its policies, insisting NAP3 provides a “comprehensive, science-based framework” for managing climate risks. A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs said it would respond fully to the legal challenge in due course.
If successful, the case could have far-reaching implications, forcing the UK and other European nations to treat climate adaptation not just as policy—but as a human rights obligation.
