Liam Dann: Before we pay the price of climate change we need to agree on the bill

Some years we might see a lot more water, but other years we might see more extreme drought. Photo / Neil Reid

OPINION:

New Zealanders are finally being forced to face what former US vice-president Al Gore dubbed “an inconvenient truth” almost 20 years ago.

Many people simply chose not to believe the science presented in that documentary - some still don’t.

But perhaps the real problem isn’t that minority of deniers dug into their rabbit holes.

Perhaps the bigger problem is those of us (and I’m certainly guilty) who have been supportive of change in theory, but are largely ambivalent, hoping that others will push things along fast enough to head this thing off at the pass.

Now we’ve reached the point where, as Bob Dylan once said: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”.

Unless you’re National MP Maureen Pugh that is, who, as recently as Tuesday, was still waiting for evidence.

Party leaders quickly let her know which way the wind is blowing.

Based on the speed and voracity of Pugh’s re-education on the science of climate change, we appear to finally have solid cross-party consensus on the issue.

That won’t resolve the debate about New Zealand’s role in mitigating climate change.

In a small country, there’ll always be an argument about the extent to which we should try to lead on issues where our global influence is marginal.

From a purely economic point of view, there’s a case for the kind of “fast follow” pragmatism advocated by those on the Right.

But we should also note that, when we consider our history and sense of national identity, there is little pride to be found in that approach.

New Zealanders celebrate putting their best foot forward in two world wars and leading social change on issues like women’s suffrage and homosexual law reform.

Regardless, what’s really changed this summer is that we have realised we need to get cracking on adapting as well.

At first, glance that seems a more straightforward issue. But even with consensus around the need to act, there are challenges.

Everyone wants to know how much the cyclone will cost the economy so we can get on with arguing about how to pay for it.

But before we can decide that, we have to decide what scale of rebuild we are looking at.

Last week I suggested that the Government could address our long-term bipartisan neglect of infrastructure in the flood-affected regions, allowing us to account for at least some of the costs as investments.

I still think that, but I’m also conscious that involves some big choices and very difficult assumptions about what is required.

Committing to “building back better” doesn’t mean we can afford to throw money around. In fact, given the billions involved, the opposite is the case.

There will need to be some hard economic assessment, as there was after the Christchurch earthquakes.

Are there regions that will effectively become red zones, where rebuilding homes and infrastructure simply isn’t worth it?

Somewhat poignantly, the anniversary of the big Christchurch quake fell last Wednesday.

Comparisons aren’t necessarily helpful in terms of the practical response. These are very different disasters.

But the anniversary serves as a reminder of what a difficult act it is to balance the national economic interest with the disruption to the lives of affected residents.

There are plenty of people in Christchurch who still feel aggrieved about the way things went, even though the city is finally starting to shine again.

There were assumptions we could make about the frequency of earthquakes that won’t hold for flood events as climate change progresses.

But even that’s not straightforward.

Some years we might see a lot more water, but other years we might see more extreme drought.

El Nino years traditionally bring drought to the eastern areas of both the North and South Islands. Photo / NZME

If we had a regular monsoon season coming at us in the way it does for Hong Kong or Singapore, then the cost-benefit on infrastructure would be more clear-cut.

It’s worth mentioning though that, despite having epic multibillion-dollar drainage systems to deal with monsoons, both Singapore and Hong Kong are grappling with the same issues that we are.

They are debating expensive upgrades to drainage in the wake of ever more extreme flooding.

In Singapore, a large-scale flooding event in 2021 prompted the government there to create a new national water agency called PUB (maybe Kiwis would like that name better than Three Waters).

So how do we pay for all this? Do we tax more, borrow more or spend less - or (god forbid) a sensible mix of all three?

In theory, this should be the biggest election issue on the table this year.

The cynic in me doesn’t think it will be.

With the issues all laid brutally bare before us, we effectively have a national referendum on the way forward.

Both major parties should be able to present clear and distinct policy approaches.

Unfortunately, my cynical self suspects that what will actually happen is that we’ll patch up the worst of the damage.

Then the debate about the broader rebuild will drag on until those of us outside the affected regions lose interest.

That’s what happened in Christchurch.

I hope I’m wrong, but even with increased intensity and frequency, the coming mix of droughts and floods and, hopefully, a few moderate years in between may still leave enough room for complacency.

History suggests we can never underestimate the human capacity for complacency.