On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:20:35 -0700 (PDT),
jmschristophers@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 10:28:36 AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
New official advice on sea levels - no consents to build until two
metres above high tide
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11868570
Parts of the article are quite amusing - "How many communities are
going to want to put their hands up? They can spin out all the
gobbledygook they like. What do they want us to do?
"They keep talking about the challenges. Where's the money, honey? If
they want us to do something particular like relocating, they better
come up with the dough."
but there is a serious message underneath.
In some cases people have built in silly places - natural erosion is
causing some coastal settlements having sections being washed away -
Kapiti Coast north of Wellington has seen parts of back-yards lost for
a few years now. Some coastal recreation areas are seeing the front
line of houses pulled back (Kairakau in Hawkes Bay had a storm that
flooded enough of the housing area to cause a lot of holiday homes to
be moved) but now we are talking of places like Thames needing to
move. It is possible that the high water levels in the river that
flooded Edgecumbe may be related to the climate changes that are
leading to the new policy.
If its not roading, National don't want to know, so we have seen
Christchurch city centre and Edgecumbe both rebuilt on damaged land
(although the red zones which represent land that should never have
been built on are extensive) - New Zealand has not yet faced up to an
urban area needing to be moved,but it will come, and the quetin as to
where the money is coming from is real - witht he science telling us
the likely effects of climate change, we cannot pretend that
inundation is something that should be covered by EQC - and as the
Mayor of Thames points out (as did the Mayor of Edgcumbe earlier in
the year), ratepayers are not in a position to pay the costs
themselves.
Leadership is lacking - our government is currently just managing
issues; they are not looking ahead, and when hit with problems they
must have been told are in the background, they are lost (and inclined
to deny the problem even exists) until they have someone to follow.
There is no excuse with this one however - the science has predicted
it for some time; we know that low-klynig pacific islands have been
experiencing problems for some time; - National appears to believe
that being conservative means putting things off until they can't
ignore them.
Putting political posturings to one side, if this is truly where things now stand what measures do you think should be taken to meet both the practical needs and the costs of mass relocation in those areas allegedly at risk?
Your post is welcome in demonstrating two things. First, a call to put political posturing to one side is traditional "Nat-spin" of
dismissing an issue as "just partisan", and therefore not to be taken seriously.
But you then go on to rightly question just what the issue is, and if
it is as described, what should be done. That is a significant advance
on the political approach of this government, which has kept quiet
about this problem ever afecting New Zealand until suddenly they
advise that they are going to tell Councils to not approve
developments or structures lower than 1.9 metres above the high tide
mark - and increase of half a metre over advice a decade ago. At that
is was delayed from last year!
Look now at the presentation from Dept of Environment at the bottom of
the article. First it indicates that "Minister Bennett" established a
"Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group". Well done, but
the the presentation illustrates the narrow focus being taken by
government. They are to provide advice for adapting to the effects of
climate change. I'm not aware of any work done since 2008 on
mitigation of the effects - National gutted the measures that Labour
set up to reduce emissions, which while they were directed at world
wide mitigation, did result in widespread discussion of the effects.
The presentation says "Central government has focused on providing
information and some national direction, and then effectively admits
nothing has been done - it talks of a few references to issues and
some work being done, then goes on to identify "Gaps" that identify
the first issue as "Cross-sectoral adaptation leadership" and other
nicely anonymised gaps that carefully don't point the finger at those responsible for policy and overall direction.
Then there is a longer section on local government - it is clear that
they see Local Government as where action will need to take place,
but that little is being done but there are constraints - with the
first "Gap" being "Central government leadership and support"
Then there is a classic "control cycle"which leaves out who actually
does anything, and a graph showing that the sea-level rise projections
are getting steadily worse. That graph perhaps goes some way to being
evidence that the problem is real - particularly with the comment that
the 1.9 metre level is half a metre higher than projections 10 years
ago - the science has been fairly consistent for quite a long time -
albeit that it is now predicting adverse outcomes happening a little
sooner than previously. Of course there ae some who will not believe
anything they do not ish to believe until it has happened - lets hope
our government is prepared to listen to scientific advice, even if
some individuals don't - I would rather have our government supression
of discussion that embarasses them than Trump's preparedness to act on
the basis of ignorance, persona whim and against advice.
Then they identify that essentially nothing has happened since 2008
regarding planning for these problems, and talks about a "pathways"
approach to planning - and finishes with ä National Policy Statement
on managing risk from natural hazards has been prposed for 2018"
So from 2008 until now, the best we can do us start on :managing risk"
- which we will make a start on after the next election! ________________________________
So from the article:
"The briefing document bullet-points weaknesses in the current
approach, with local councils said to be seeking "central government
leadership and support" and "community understanding and buy-in on the
need to act on climate change impacts now".
Thames-Coromandel District mayor Sandra Goudie burst out laughing when
she was read that section.
"How many communities are going to want to put their hands up? They
can spin out all the gobbledygook they like. What do they want us to
do?
"They keep talking about the challenges. Where's the money, honey? If
they want us to do something particular like relocating, they better
come up with the dough."
The Waikato town of Thames is known to be vulnerable, with much of the low-lying parts of the town likely to be submerged on sea-level
projections.
"We've got quite a few people living on the flat around Thames," said
Goudie. "Do you want to come into town and say 'we think you're going
to be flooded - we want you to pick up sticks and move to a house on
the hill. And by the way, we're going to rate you (increase rates to
pay) for it'." "
The people in Thames will now know that their properties are virtually unsaleable. They are not a wealthy community. THre has just been a
budget - they probably missed the allocation of funds that the
government has set aside to help with their problems, and they know
that their local Council hasn't the money to help them. So much for
property rights - they weren't warned about this when they bought
their house or business. They've seen what happens when a town goes
under water - but they know that where Edgcumbe relied on insurance,
this may well not be an insurable event (even if it is this year), and
EQC may also not be applicable.
Perhaps they will ask their MP to help? He is Scott Simpson, who I
must admit I had not heard of until I looked him up. The Wikipedia
article about him says:
"Simpson maintained responsibilities in the National Party hierarchies
prior to election. He has been a National Party Northern Regional
Chair[1] and a member of the National Party’s Board of
Directors.[2][3] Simpson stood for selection as the National Party
candidate for Tamaki in 2004.[1][4] He was married to Desley Simpson,
but they split up in 2004 or 2005.[5] Scott Simpson stood for the
National Party presidency in 2009 but lost out to Peter Goodfellow;
his former wife has lived with Goodfellow since September 2008.[5]
Simpson was selected as the National Party's Coromandel candidate in
April 2011.[6] He was elected at the 2011 general election with a
majority of 11,800.
_________________________
So we come back to your request:
"... what measures do you think should be taken to meet both the
practical needs and the costs of mass relocation in those areas
allegedly at risk?"
It is of course much easier to ask such a question than answer it - I
guess that's why you didn;t want to set an examle. Don't feel
embarrassed - this issue is clearly beyond the whole National-led
government, and "Minister Bennett" in particular - you are no worse
than them in not having ideas.
So my view? I do not know much about Thames, but I do believe that
this issue is not of their making and they deserve assistance from the
rest of New Zealand . While the disaster of inundation is a projeced
future event, with I am sure some uncertainty as to incidence, it
appears that the town wil eventually disappear. There are likely to be
other areas of New Zealand that are also under threat, and it is
likely that no such area has the resources to deal with the related
need for moving elsewhere - sure some individuals will, but not whole communities. Experience of Christchurch and Edgcumbe indicates that it
is desirable to move property before it is devalued by a natural
disaster. It is in fact debateable whether Edgcumbe should have been
rebuilt in its current location - certainly the chance of a repeat
event must be uncomfortingly high. Ideally Thames should be able to be
moved to higher ground - but possibly largely combined with another
town or settlement that has some capacity in existing infrastructure.
While EQC may not apply, the principles behind it may be appropriate.
We do not have higher EQC levies for people living on a volcano in
Auckland, or earthquake faults elsewhere around New Zealnd, than
people living in areas less likely to have such events. Similarly, it
should be possible to introduce a national levy to build up funds for
"NZ Disaster relief" - and to use government funds to fund projects to
mitigate the impact of rising sea levels.
Ask yourself, if the areas that were projected to go under water were
Mission Bay, Herne Bay, St Marys Bay, Oriental Bay, what would the
government response have been?
So now I have given one view, what do you really think,
jmschristophers?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)