Climate change – do we mitigate or do we adapt?

21 comments on “Climate change – do we mitigate or do we adapt? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ad 1

   25 February 2023 at 2:13 pm

   Mickey, just sent you something with a local take.
   • mickysavage 1.1

     25 February 2023 at 2:34 pm

     Up now. Perfect response thanks.
2. Stuart Munro 2

   25 February 2023 at 2:31 pm

   It is going to be a difficult issue, and adaptation will probably be more productive than waiting for a coherent government response. There are still people out there touting hydrogen, not to speak of airlines greenwashing on the back of ostensible carbon credits in third world countries. The time for such things was never – but they are slowing any credible response.

   There is a long way to go – government is still merely spraying wilding pines instead of replanting with whatever makes it past DoC's bizarre set of nativist prejudices. The Greens were at one time keen on regulating bottled water out – it's a product that creates entirely unnecessary waste – no progress. If we cannot manage no-brainers like these, what hope is there for more complex issues?
   • mickysavage 2.1

     25 February 2023 at 2:37 pm

     The trouble is as the Stern Report shows adaption is way more expensive.

     This cartoon is really relevant.

     
     • Stuart Munro 2.1.1

       25 February 2023 at 5:11 pm

       It applies to all our environmental interactions. No stock enhancement or supported breeding in fisheries. Little supporting research for diversification to chase the billion dollars in aquaculture returns target. There should be an environmentally positive transition model for dairy by now – haven't seen one.

       It's like Buckminster Fuller & the New Alchemists never published.
   • pat 2.2

     25 February 2023 at 2:39 pm

     None, so long as politics is allowed its say. (both lower and upper case)….and that is a problem in a democracy.

     But do we wish to abandon democracy? and what in its stead?
   • joe90 2.3

     25 February 2023 at 3:17 pm

     but they are slowing any credible response.

     But shareholder returns…

     https://twitter.com/curious_founder/status/1628808881899192321
     • bwaghorn 2.3.1

       25 February 2023 at 4:33 pm

       Na it's the cows
3. bwaghorn 3

   25 February 2023 at 2:34 pm

   I'm afraid it's fortress nz time, move to higher ground ,the wild place will have to be abandoned, owner occupied horse get support, bach owners I'm afraid you're on your own
   • weka 3.1

     25 February 2023 at 3:35 pm

     Many cribs can be relocated. And then retrofitted with grid tied solar, lots of insulation, passive tech etc. Way cheaper than building a new house.
     • bwaghorn 3.1.1

       25 February 2023 at 3:55 pm

       The few cribs I've seen are held together by gravity!!and that's about it. But I was thinking more the luxury items the wealthy own who hate taxs bit will be crying for government loving
4. Siobhan 4

   25 February 2023 at 2:38 pm

   "Labour …well placed given the progressive left’s long term commitment to the issue and because it has been shown to be right."..that should be Labours next election campaign slogan…about as informative and committed and ultimately meaningless as Labours "Lets do this" campaign..
   • Craig H 4.1

     25 February 2023 at 3:00 pm

     Climate change: We told you so

     Someone get the focus groups underway!
5. Thinker 5

   25 February 2023 at 5:05 pm

   We talk about the problems created by Big Oil.

   Looming are the problems created by Big Insurance.

   If we compare the Napier Earthquake of 1931, where a city rebuilt itself in about 18 months, with the Christchurch Earthquakes, which took much longer, we recall in the latter the lengthy and frustrating time it took for people to receive their insurance payouts which was the precursor to rebuilding their lives.

   The more climate change impacts on not only New Zealand but elsewhere insurance is going to really affect how we are able to deal with things. Premiums will need to go up (or do we find other ways to protect our assets?) and the timing of payouts will dictate how quickly communities can recover.

   I'm not an expert on Japan, but I have some friends there and I think they live quite differently to us. They deal with their earthquake risk not by building expensive, strong buildings, but by building lightweight, cheaper buildings that are presumably cheaper to insure and to replace if/when a proportion of them need it. Maybe other "Standardistas" know more about this.

   As much as my point is that maybe the way we build our buildings might change, it is also that we need to be on guard against the timing of our communities' rebuilding/rebirthing being controlled by Big Insurance.
   • Graeme 5.1

     25 February 2023 at 7:43 pm

     A big sticking point with insurance in NZ is th predominance of 'Total Replacement' policies. These dictate the the loss has to be replaced exactly as it was before the loss.

     These policies are an easy sell, people can sleep easy knowing that a loss will be put back as it was. But if any changes to the building are prudent, tough luck.

     I once worked for a company who had a building with some major layout deficiencies that burnt down. The insurers insisted that the building be rebuilt as it was before the loss. From other claims we've made with our business and personal, it's very hard to get an insurance company to deviate from what they see as the best course of action for themselves.

     Can see insurance as the big sticking point in any transition / retreat, just like they were with Christchurch
     • pat 5.1.1

       25 February 2023 at 8:11 pm

       Total replacement policies were discarded post the ChCh quakes…insurance is now on sum insured basis.
       • Graeme 5.1.1.1

         25 February 2023 at 8:49 pm

         That's only for a total loss, try making a claim for a less than total loss and the insurer will only entertain replacement to the exact state immediately before the loss, and want to exercise total control over the reinstatement process.

         Been there done that twice since Christchurch and they were difficult before, they are total pricks since, often to their disadvantage.
         • pat 5.1.1.1.1

           26 February 2023 at 4:13 am

           I bow to your recent experience…though find it difficult to imagine they could be worse to deal with than previously.
   • Hunter Thompson II 5.2

     26 February 2023 at 9:39 am

     Maybe if houses and other structures erected in unsuitable locations become uninsurable, that will effect a managed retreat?

     Won't happen overnight, of course.
6. AB 6

   26 February 2023 at 9:58 am

   The sudden leap to adaptation and abandonment of emissions reduction/mitigation is just the latest form of denialism. Repeating myself – but adaptation without mitigation becomes ruinously expensive and then impossible as we head towards something like 4 degrees of warming (or worse) by the end of the century. They are hanging their hats on the peg of market-based 'solutions' in the form of technology (direct air capture of CO2, geoengineering, marine algae cultivation to remove CO2 from oceans, etc.) An incredibly high-risk game just to keep the existing show on the road – because for them, no other show is conceivable or permissible.
7. barry 7

   26 February 2023 at 12:34 pm

   It is not an "either or" it is "both".

   Real adaptation is many times more expensive that mitigation. If the world had taken the KLyoto agreement seriously 30+years ago, then GW would have been reduced and adaptation costs would be much less.

   Every bit of mitigation we do now, reduces the need for adaptation in a generation at a cost many times higher.

   We can choose not to mitigate, but we can't choose not to adapt. Most adaptation just looks like normal business or life decisions. Growing conditions are better elsewhere so we change where we farm. The climate is better elsewhere so we move. We put in air conditioning.

   The sort of adaptation we notice is things like managed retreat from low lying areas, or higher stop banks. This is a lot of money all at once, but overall a small proportion of the costs.

   Hooton's argument is just as specious as Pugh's. We don't wait for more evidence, nor do we assume that this is as bad as it gets.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS