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
No comments:
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.