The highest priority of climate change for this district is not reducing emissions but making the necessary changes to enable people to keep living here.
The task of tackling emissions, reducing consumption and so forth are worthy goals but ones that must be attacked on a global basis, with full participation from all — especially the biggest contributors and consumers.
While I applaud every small personal contribution made by those of us who are environmentally concerned, it is important — indeed vital — to keep perspective. It will do a minuscule area such as ours absolutely no good to pursue the reduction of emissions if we cannot first overcome climate-related problems such as climate change and weather events.
This region’s priority must be the need to change land use: to change, relocate or protect vital services and infrastructure, residences, farming operations and other human activities.
Doing what we have done in the past is not going to work — a radically new approach needs to be taken.
Yes, it will be difficult. Yes, it will be painful, but we cannot keep building ever higher walls to keep reality out. We need to work with the air, land and water, not keep trying to bend nature and the world to our self-centred needs and wants.
The Gisborne region is just under 8400 square kilometres, with around 52,000 residents. It is nonsense to talk about reducing emissions when one considers the smallest state in America is Rhode Island, with a land area of 4000 sq km but a population of more than a million.
The second largest state, behind Alaska, is Texas with some 30 million residents and a land area approaching 696,000 sq km.
Honestly, how can you even compare whatever contribution this district can make with either of those examples? Then consider the other 48 states ... and all the other countries on the planet.
Let us concentrate on what we can usefully do, not waste time and effort where we can have virtually no impact.
Roger Handford
3 comments
This century, the climate in Gisborne has barely changed. Summers are no warmer, maybe shorter, winters are slightly milder. Until 2022, they were no wetter. It was normal to have an annual 150-200m rain event, perhaps two. The district coped fine by & large.
What has changed in recent times is the district's ability to cope with rain, & the damage unleashed to infrastructure. Rivers are no longer dredged so the silt builds up, reducing their capacity to carry water. Roadways are under greater threat from the scouring of higher waterways. And the level of debris that now flows down the waterways is causing great damage to the infrastructure.
During Gabby, it is likely many of the lost bridges would have survived but for the immense amount of wood backed up against it, acting like a battering ram. The bridges weren't engineered for that level of force.
Yes to changes in land use, particularly in highly erodable land, but also changes to land use practices near waterways. Waterways are for carrying water, not industrial waste. And prepare the waterways to carry larger volumes by dredging or other means.
These are practical steps. Implemented they will make a much larger difference than a few ev chargers (which from my observation are often broken).
Re-engineering the region may be the ultimate solution, but that is likely to evolve over time. We need practical steps implemented now. Regardless, either option will cost a lot less than the $500B+ touted for national net zero, which quite frankly won't stop these damaging weather events.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION
Read and post comments with a
Newsroom Pro subscription.
Subscribe now to start a free
28-day trial.