I was reading an article today with the title ‘Why is NZ spending far more on responding to climate disasters than on reducing future risk?’ (link) and it reminds me of a blog post I made a while ago talking about how voters will claim they want honest politicians but when they’re confronted with one they don’t vote for them. The premise of why people don’t vote for honest politicians is because for far too many voters when they say they want an honest politician what they really want is someone who says the things they agree with rather than what they need to hear which can be uncomfortable sometimes.
Regarding the aticle itself, to answer the question ‘Why is NZ spending far more on responding to climate disasters than on reducing future risk?’, the reason why there is more spent on responding rather than reducing future risk is because the steps to reduce future risk aren’t popular with the public and they won’t get politicians name up in lights – much the same way that politicians would sooner spend money on something new and shiny than fixing up what already exists.
This is the reason why Wellington water infrastructure is in the sorry state that it is in – counsellors were more interested in keeping rates low and what rates were collected were spent on economically unviable things like a convention centre which cost more money to the council than it brings in. The net result? water pipes bursting, water infrastructure falling to pieces and the rate payer wondering where on earth did all the money go to over the years. Was their an alternative? Labour proposed three waters but New Zealanders convinced themselves that co-governance is the worst thing that had befallen humanity resulting in Labour losing the election and the alterntive is the half baked solution from National aka ‘Local Water Done Well’ has resulted in the mess that exist today.
The reality is that some parts of the country are going to become uneconomically viable to keep rebuilding every time there is a climate related disaster resulting in many if not most insurance companies just saying that they’re not going to offer insurance coverage in particular areas. I also don’t believe that setting up some sort of government owned backstop insurance is going to help either because even if you were to nationalise the housing insurance market with a single insurer you’ll still have the same issue of far too many uninsurable properties driving up everyone else’s premiums.
What is the solution? it may require some towns being completely mothballed and the inhabitants relocated to places where the risk of climate related disasters are a lot lower. There is also the matter of curbing green house gas emissions which will require lifestyle changes such as greater housing density, walkable neighbourhoods, mass transit and less dependence on private vehicles etc. major lifestyle changes that I don’t think people are willing to make (not to mention big investments in rail infrastructure for freight and passenger transportation). Whenever there are attempts to do just that there is push back by NIMBYs resulting in the necessary progress forward consistently undermined and we all end up paying the price when it comes to dealing with the long term consequences of climate change.
It is very much the same problem faced in the United States – towns that have been dying for at least 70 years with congressmen who keep selling false hope that anytime soon there will be a rejuvenation of the area. If congressmen and senators were honest with the area they would tell them that the only reason why their town or area existed is because of an industry that no longer exists and that the future should be able moving forward rather than living in the past. The problem is that the pull of nostalgia blinds people to what what needs to be done – to move on to greener pastures and leave the past behind.
Matisyahu's Blog 