First of all the scientific consensus is that increased levels of greenhouse gases in the environment will lead to more extreme weather events. That doesn’t mean any individual event can be linked to greenhouse gas levels, but that overall there is a link.
Now climate change mitigation is about reducing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In terms of mitigation, there is absolutely nothing that NZ could do that would have reduced the probablity of the extreme weather event that caused the slides. Even if ten years ago we had magically found a way to produce no greenhouse gases, the difference would be minimal.
Today there are 423.9 parts per million of CO2. If we had been net zero for the last 10 years it would be 423.8 parts per million – a 0.024% reduction. This is a simple fact. Not opinion, not speculation. That is the data.
This is not an argument for us not mitigating climate change through our CO2 emissions. I support an ETS which uses market forces to reduce our emissions for reasons of trade access amongst other things. It is just stating a fact that no policy by the NZ government could have reduced the level of greenhouses gases enough to make Mt Maunganui even slightly less likely to occur. It is impossible.
The other part of climate change is adaptation. This is what a country does to prepare for more adverse weather events. This is where the focus should be. Mt Maunganui was known to be prone to slips. What steps were taken to make it more resilient? Was it a good idea to remove exotic trees from the mount (note any impact of this would be minimal, but it is still valid to query whether cultural purity over trees should trump resilience.) What planning had been done for slips which were a known hazard? Had the Council ever considered moving the park’s location etc? Had they considered a massive tree planting operation to stabilise areas? Had they considered retaining walls in vulnerable areas?
Any inquiry should also look at the failure of authorities to act when warned. The timeline is not flattering:
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
Now climate change mitigation is about reducing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In terms of mitigation, there is absolutely nothing that NZ could do that would have reduced the probablity of the extreme weather event that caused the slides. Even if ten years ago we had magically found a way to produce no greenhouse gases, the difference would be minimal.
Today there are 423.9 parts per million of CO2. If we had been net zero for the last 10 years it would be 423.8 parts per million – a 0.024% reduction. This is a simple fact. Not opinion, not speculation. That is the data.
This is not an argument for us not mitigating climate change through our CO2 emissions. I support an ETS which uses market forces to reduce our emissions for reasons of trade access amongst other things. It is just stating a fact that no policy by the NZ government could have reduced the level of greenhouses gases enough to make Mt Maunganui even slightly less likely to occur. It is impossible.
The other part of climate change is adaptation. This is what a country does to prepare for more adverse weather events. This is where the focus should be. Mt Maunganui was known to be prone to slips. What steps were taken to make it more resilient? Was it a good idea to remove exotic trees from the mount (note any impact of this would be minimal, but it is still valid to query whether cultural purity over trees should trump resilience.) What planning had been done for slips which were a known hazard? Had the Council ever considered moving the park’s location etc? Had they considered a massive tree planting operation to stabilise areas? Had they considered retaining walls in vulnerable areas?
Any inquiry should also look at the failure of authorities to act when warned. The timeline is not flattering:
- 5am – Lisa Maclennan warns and wakes campers about the slips. Can’t find and camp staff. No answer on camp emergency number (camp is owned by the council)
- 5.47 am – 111 called. FENZ notifies TCC but does not attend
- 5.51 am – FENZ calls TCC main contact centre, but not the emergency operations centre
- 6.18 am – camper calls Police. Police said they would attend but no one did
- 7.42 am – campground manager and council staff inspect slips and drive off to surf club
- 7.45 am – council ute drives past three slips
- 8.02 am – councils closes tracks above slips, but do not close campground below them
- 9.30 am – slip kills six people including the heroic Lisa Maclennan
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
8 comments:
Luxon and the MSM make such a song and dance about "misinformation" and "trolls" when people question the effects of the removal of trees directly over the slip. But at the same time they keep promoting propaganda that the slip was caused because NZ is apparently not doing enough about climate change. After all that, the msm then moans about the economy, which the wacky climate measures they promote sabotages.
There seems to be divided opinion on whether the tree removal had an impact. One can only assume a geologist, or knowledgable person, would know either that this is correct or it is not. It seems strange that there is conjecture over this.
Regarding the "cultural" aspect: The Mount has been an iconic holiday spot for years. Many families have enjoyed this destination.
Beautiful trees should not be removed. The reason is simply because they are beautiful. Many have stood steadfast for 50 to 100 years or even longer.
Trees don't decide whether they are "colonial" or not. It is getting pretty petty when beauty is sacrificed for one-upmanship.
In this case it appears tragic.
"Luxon and the MSM keep promoting propaganda that the slip was caused because NZ is apparently not doing enough about climate change."
NZ's emissions are so small that they could not possibly have any effect on climate. The big emitters are China, USA, India, Russia.
Some more numbers:-
There are 423.9 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere.
Human emissions account for 3% of these.
NZ's emissions are 0.17% of human emissions.
So, NZ's emissions are 423.9 x 3% x 0.17%.
Which equal 0.0216 parts per million !!
Maori should be the experts on maunga slipping.
After all they built their pa sites on the top of a hill after clearing all the bush and trees below.
The trees were sharpened with stone axes to a point then erected around the pa as a a pallisade to keep the cannibalistic neighbours out.
As clearly shown in paintings by early Europeans.
Without the support of the tree roots on the hillside those maunga would have slipping away.
Now it's easier, just ask Shane Jones for another $10M to build a nice safe marae with electric kitchens, and flushing toilets.
Then insist that Council meetings are held there to facilitate the continued indoctrination of the white councilors.
Close the circle.
Apologies, David, I forgot to say - that was an excellent article of yours. You really have summed up the situation. It was, indeed a preventable disaster.
Surely if it comes down to an attempt to mitigate climate change, or local natural hazards in this country, there’s no contest? Where do you think you would get the biggest bang for your buck?
Janine, slips in Tauranga have been known for many years.
See the GNS book " A Continent on the Move" published 2008.
They are an acknowledged natural risk.
This planet is always going to have its climate changing - it has for the last 4.5 Bn years.
Humans are just going to evolve with the climate changes.
Let's put the scientists in charge, not Councilors who have no geotech experience.
In Tauranga's case, Drysdale has appointed unelected paid Maori to the Council for political reasons not for their expertise in anything other fabricated history.
It defies belief that that area of the campground below the slip wasn't closed off to campers some time ago and the ablution block resisted. That part of the hill must have shown signs of instability before. TCC asleep at the wheel, again. More important cultural issues to attend to, I presume
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.