The new Minister for Climate Change says an adaption framework is in the works as New Zealand insurers press for more collaboration around natural hazard risk prevention.
It has been almost exactly a year to the day since the devastating Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods as well as Cyclone Gabrielle which followed shortly after.
On Friday, IAG and Tower said they've paid out almost all the claims from both disasters while Suncorp says it has paid out most of its claims from the Auckland floods.
All three insurers say they want conversations and more collaboration with the new government around reducing natural hazard risks. The previous government launched a national adaptation plan.
Simon Watts – the new Minister for Climate Change and also revenue – told Interest.co.nz in a statement on Wednesday that an adaption framework was in the works.
“[....] that framework will guide the decisions that need to be made in relation to adaptation and ensure we aren't starting at square one when disasters like Cyclone Gabrielle strike,” the Minister said.
Interest.co.nz had asked if the Government was considering new legislative changes or regulatory frameworks to support climate change adaptation, natural hazard risk reduction, and managed retreat work.
But the new Government has yet to reveal what might be inside its climate change adaption framework, and whether there'll be any significant changes from what the previous government was doing.
“This framework will be developed in collaboration with central and local government, banks and insurers, Iwi Māori and community groups, who each have a role to play as we adapt to the impacts of climate change,” Watts said in his Wednesday statement.
“We are moving at pace to get this work started so that we can have a framework in place as soon as possible.”
The previous Government's national climate change adaptation plan, released back in August 2022 which entailed a list of climate actions that the then-Government was planning to tick off between 2022 to 2028.
“For too long we have pushed climate adaptation to the back of the cupboard,” the then-Climate Change Minister James Shaw wrote in that report.
Some of the actions the previous government said it wanted to undertake across the climate-affected insurance sector included exploring options to improve the affordability and availability of flood insurance and monitoring residential insurance premiums.
However, Shaw said in the plan that central government wouldn’t bear all the costs of climate change adaptation.
“Risk and cost will fall across different parts of society, including asset or property owners, their insurance companies, their banks, local government and central government,” he wrote.
The emerging gap
IAG – New Zealand’s biggest insurer – said on Friday that a more targeted approach was needed in order to “close the emerging gap between the impacts of our hazards and how they are managed”.
“We have been actively involved in helping to improve the management of natural hazard risk and remain committed to playing our part,” IAG chief executive Amanda Whiting said.
“It’s vital that both central and local government continue to prioritise this important work on behalf of all New Zealanders.”
IAG said its NZ brands – AMI, State, and NZI – had received over 52,000 claims resulting from both the North Island floods and Cyclone Gabrielle since last year.
Of that figure, 96% of home claims, 99% of motor claims and 99% of contents claims had now been settled, the insurer said.
The insurance payouts from these disasters has surpassed $1 billion – a number IAG said was second only to the Canterbury earthquakes.
“We received six times as many claims as the same period the year before,” Whiting said.
“However, the number of claims and amount of payments only partially reflect the true social and economic cost of these events.”
In November last year, Whiting said that average claim costs were on the rise, with average weather-related claim costs at $35,000 in Hawke’s Bay, $30,000 on the West Coast, and $21,000 in Gisborne Tairāwhiti.
The chief executive of general insurer Tower described the Auckland Anniversary Weekend flooding and Cyclone Gabrielle as the “most impactful weather events our generation has known”.
Blair Turnball said on Friday that Tower had received more than 9,400 claims from the two events and as of January 24th, the general insurer had settled 91% of them – 1,051 being motor, 2,348 contents and 5,763 house claims.
“To protect Kiwis now and in the future, as a country we must lay down longer-term plans to address infrastructure gaps and reduce the risks of climate change,” he said.
“That starts with more collaboration between business, central government, and councils to share data and ideas to accelerate this.”
Suncorp’s head of disaster response David Drillien said on Friday that Suncorp NZ – which also includes Vero and AA Insurance – had received more than 17,500 claims following the Auckland Anniversary floods last year and 91% of the claims had been fulfilled.
“Those claims that remain open will be managed through to completion by our specialist claims teams and we are aiming to have almost all of these closed in the half of 2024,” he said.
“As we continue to assess our response to the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods, Suncorp New Zealand is committed to engaging with local and central government on opportunities to build an understanding of natural hazard risk management and how we as insurers can contribute to preventing, or at least limiting, the impacts of large weather events.”
In December last year, the Insurance Council New Zealand said insurers had paid out $2.7 billion out of the $3.6 billion claims made from the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in January 2023 and Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023.
82 Comments
Humans are so gullible...Adolf Hitler had millions of Germans believing that Jews were the cause of all their problems.
How about the acid rain destroying all crops scam, running out of water, the ozone layer disappearing, and not forgetting of course, the ice caps melting by 2010. World oil consumption is still increasing, so you're wrong. There's one born every minute all right. There was a fair bit of rain where I live this time last year, but there's been periods over the decades where there's been hardly any rain at all for weeks on end, people had to abandon their houses. It's not 'global warming'!
Millions of 'scientists' and civil servants worldwide depend on the continuation of the global warming boondoggle for their income, so it won't be going away anytime soon.
Actually it grows and shrinks every year. Maybe the so called scientists didn't get that when they made everyone terrified. Yes, it is still there, not sure whether it is as large as it was, but it grows and shrinks every single year. I think the 'we saved it by not using fly spray angle' is probably compete myth and the so called scientists are probably too embarrassed to it admit it. Just like they will be when 'climate change' is determined to be a natural cycle.
Scientists admitted in 2007 that the CFC model was bunk. Montreal didn't change anything. It is a good lesson from history in regard to runaway global warming theory.
“As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
...This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear."
Chemists poke holes in ozone theory
https://www.nature.com/articles/449382a
Observation of large and all-season ozone losses over the tropics (2022)
"This paper reveals a large and all-season ozone hole in the lower stratosphere over the tropics (30°N–30°S) existing since the 1980s, where an O3 hole is defined as an area of O3 loss larger than 25% compared with the undisturbed atmosphere. The depth of this tropical O3 hole is comparable to that of the well-known springtime Antarctic O3 hole, whereas its area is about seven times that of the latter. Similar to the Antarctic O3 hole, approximately 80% of the normal O3 value is depleted at the center of the tropical O3 hole. The results strongly indicate that both Antarctic and tropical O3 holes must arise from an identical physical mechanism, for which the cosmic-ray-driven electron reaction model shows good agreement with observations.
...The successful execution of the Montreal Protocol and its revisions has led to the declining total level of tropospheric ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) (mainly chlorofluorocarbons—CFCs) since around 1994. Yet, the O3 hole over the Arctic in 2020 set the biggest record,1 while the O3 holes over the Antarctic in 2020 and 2021 were among the largest, deepest, and most persistent ones. As a matter of fact, these observations were not expected from photochemical models2 but precisely predicted by the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced-reaction (CRE) model.3–9
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/12/7/075006/2818805/Observation-of…
Thanks for your predictable, fact free, little rant. How does "trolls, fairies, gods and other mystical mythical forces." make it past Nature peer review?
"Despite nearly 99% of ozone-depleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol, the Antarctic ozone hole has grown steadily larger over the past four years. In 2022, the hole reached an unprecedented size – three times the area of Brazil. Measurements also show the ozone concentration at the core of the hole is 26% lower than in 2004."
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/2023-12/cams_sh_oz…
The article you posted to in Nature says the exact opposite of what you stated in your intro paragraph.
Yet again you selectively quote, out of context from a reputable source and then put your own wrong summary of what the article says, knowing that most people will not actually read the article.
People like you disgust me. I hope your grandchildren find out what you did/do.
I post the link so you can make your own mind up. I don't think DC would be happy is I pasted whole papers.
A number of scientists in the Nature article stated that the CFC model was not working out as expected. Fast forward 17 years and the ozone hole is bigger than ever. Science is about making predictions and testing those predictions. People predicted the Montreal process would stop the ozone hole. It didn't. You can't have it both ways and claim that the Montreal process was a success and the science is settled - when the data (I note you ignored the current data link) clearly shows the ozone hole is getting bigger. The quote you pick from the end of the article is been proven untrue by observation since it was made. The quote I posted has proven far more accurate.
Here is the data again just for you. https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/2023-12/cams_sh_oz…
Perhaps the CRE model is better than the photochemical model. "Yet, the O3 hole over the Arctic in 2020 set the biggest record,1 while the O3 holes over the Antarctic in 2020 and 2021 were among the largest, deepest, and most persistent ones. As a matter of fact, these observations were not expected from photochemical models2 but precisely predicted by the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced-reaction (CRE) model.3–9"
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/12/7/075006/2818805/Observation-of…
That's classic profile mis-information style. He will also select a single article as his "source of truth" which is often a single outlier and ignore all the other science articles saying the exact opposite. He doesn't really "get" science if thats how he comes to his conclusions, he just posts things that agree with his agenda, which he clearly has. I suspect its just the illusory truth effect on display, like old people that watch facebook posts to form their worldview and wonder why the real world suddenly stops agreeing with their new beliefs.
LOL - my ozone hole agenda?! Put on your big boy pants and admit to yourself the Montreal Protocol was a failure and the ozone is bigger than ever.
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/2023-12/cams_sh_oz…
No, your anti-science agenda. The Montreal Protocol was NOT a failure, I suggest you run an alternate scenario of how big the ozone hole would be if all countries were able to pump as much HFC/CFCs into the air as they wanted. But you won't model the alternative, because you believe all modelling is lies right? People do it for you, but I am guess you won't read stuff that doesn't agree with you anyway: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-48625-z#:~:text=The%20Montre….
Yes, there is a problem with the ozone right now and we aren't sure why. Its likely, just like last time there was a problem:
Previously: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952
Then: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/10/study-suggests-chinas-crac…
Most likely someone is breaking the Montreal Protocol, either via ignorance or maliciously, to try and make a buck. When they find out who it is, there will be consequences for them, much like there has been in the past. The Montreal Protocol explicitly sets out signatory country obligations for when there is a breach, China has responded and will continue to do so.
Since the Montreal Protocol was signed, there was a steady recovery by the ozone hole until people started pumping out illegal substances (https://theconversation.com/ozone-hole-closing-for-the-year-but-full-re…). That's what actually happened, not your selective revision of the science. And because its in the atmosphere and has significant lag effects, it will take a long time for full effects to be felt and a long time for them to be healed again.
The rest of your posts are of the same quality as this line of reasoning, attack anything that puts the environment first and claim the opposite. I don't know how you can live with yourself, promoting views that, if everyone thought the same, would result in deaths on a scale not experienced in human history. Do you think we can live without ozone? Clearly you think we should just allow the ozone hole to grow as big as it wants and abandon any sort of control mechanism. That would be an absolute disaster, but somehow you think we would all just be OK?
Geez blobbles wipe that froth from the keyboard! "The Montreal Protocol was NOT a failure" but the ozone hole is now bigger and as you put it "and we aren't sure why". Very sciency of you to suggest we model "and we aren't sure why" theories! I'm anti science if I post Nature articles stating "we aren't sure why" but then you post "we aren't sure why". Make you mind up.
Well that made no sense. We aren't sure why, but there is investigations going on as to find the answer. That's how things work, you make a law, someone breaks it, you investigate to find out who, then you take action. What you are suggesting is: You make a law, someone breaks it, therefore the law didn't work, therefore you throw out the law. The most idiotic line of reasoning I have read from you.
You started with "Scientists admitted in 2007 that the CFC model was bunk. Montreal didn't change anything.", which is complete horse manure. Claiming the entire system of control is wrong because scientists have to revise one part of the system (i.e. how science works) is clearly wrong. The system was working just fine, humans stopped producing ozone damaging substances and the ozone layer started healing. And then we started producing CFCs again and the ozone hole grew. That was fixed and we saw a healing pattern forming, until someone recently has been doing it again. These all show the Montreal Protocol was the right thing to do.
I don't know what this "frothing" thing is? Are you insinuating I am angry? No, I am having to explain how things work to a child like mind that clearly doesn't understand how science and international agreements work. That doesn't make me angry, just disappointed that people believe they can comment on a topic without understanding it. And slander all the people who have done great work as wrong and all their work should be discounted.
I will tell you a fact. Go read the news. The news will say that scientists say that CO2 enters the atmosphere and does not come down for however many days/weeks/months/years and causes global warming. Fact is, that is a complete lie. If that was true, then all plants on earth would be dead waiting for the C02 to come down. CO2 is also heavier that all the other components of the atmosphere, so, how exactly does it rise ? You should also simply to go a brewery, one of the most important aspects to brewing is to keep oxygen away from the beer during the brewing and ageing process. How do they do it, the pump a layer of CO2 over the top of the beer, because CO2 sinks and protects of from the Oxygen. So, please tell me how CO2 rises and causes global warming. It doesn't, that is fact. But the real truth is brewers are simply a source of disinformation, right ?
No, it is pretty simple. Why do climate scientists tell us that CO2 does one thing, when clearly it is not true. They tell us it goes into the upper atmosphere and causes all of these problems. Clearly it doesn't. You are right though, it is overly simple. But that is the point.
Exactly, so if you simply Google it you will find that CO2 is heavier than air, and so therefore it sinks. It's a fact, it heavier. But.....it can then mix with other gases within the atmosphere and may rise or may fall etc etc. But in some circumstances it will always fall, but in others it may rise. Seems like settled science to me. Point is we are never told both sides, and, they actually don't know anyway, which is why they always revert to 'the modelling', which as we mostly know half the time is total BS.
Did you even read the article he posted. This is the concluding paragraph.
"Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”
What profile does is selectively pick out bits of science journals and posts them to undermine general science consensus.
There are two reasons people do this.
1. They are conspiracy theory nutbars.
2. They get paid to do so.
I know which one Profile is.
"Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses." - other than the fact 17 years later the Ozone whole is bigger than ever!
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/2023-12/cams_sh_oz…
You would have to be a conspiracy theory nutbar to think people would be paid to comment on Interest.co.nz. Who would pay me to post abut the ozone hole - Big Refrigerator?! Projection much?
If you believe in science so much don't endlessly post unsubstantiated bullshit about paid commenters and conspiracy theories.
Maybe it is much more simple - I have a different train and background to you and we have differing world views. Suck it up without demeaning yourself by posting fact free bullshit.
An oldie, but a goody. From before the time polluters and their trolls owned social media.
"The main concern is the increase in temperatures at the Earth's surface due to an increased greenhouse effect. A general cooling of the stratosphere is predicted to take place when CO2 increases. A direct effect of lower temperatures in the stratosphere is a change in the rates of some of the chemical reactions which control the ozone layer. Anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide may therefore lead to changes in the ozone layer in the future." Yup.
https://www.nature.com/articles/283189a0
"heat-trapping gases contribute to creating the cooling conditions in the atmosphere that lead to ozone depletion."
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ozone-hole-and-global-warming
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/stratospheric-cooling-vertical-finge….
Not much chance of that. Phasing CFCs out is the only sane thing to do! The science is clear that CFCs destroy ozone, although it's not the only chemical that does so. Our own emissions of Methyl Bromide do exactly the same thing!
https://www.epa.gov/ods-phaseout/methyl-bromide#:~:text=Methyl%20bromid…(%20ODS
Human caused heating of the Troposphere conversely causes cooling of the Stratosphere, as less heat escapes to the upper atmosphere.
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/stratospheric-cooling-vertical-finge….
A colder Stratosphere means ozone damaging chemicals become more effective! It's beyond dumb to troll about the necessity for protecting our natural global UV radiation filter!
"formation of the ozone hole is directly linked to the stratosphere's temperature. Once temperatures drop below -78°C, polar stratospheric clouds tend to form, which exacerbate ozone depletion"
Millions of scientists and civil servants are earning peanuts compared to the fossil fuel nations of this world who are happy to take your hard earned dollars to keep burning there fuel.
Burn fossil fuel don't that's your choice. But nations that don't control there fossil fuel are moving away from burning it to save money. Is New Zealand investing in new gas powered power station or solar and wind? We can afford to keep burning gas and coal when we have cheaper renewable solutions.
As for green house gas warming its a well established fact that Exxon mobile has been aware off since the 70's. Where have you been?
"Why EVs will never replace ICEVs"
Caution: a long read
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/11/why_evs_will_never_replace_icevs_part_1.html
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/01/why_evs_will_never_replace_icevs_part_2.html
When do you predict the rate of sales of EVs will drop? The uptake seems to be increasing therefore driving further technological advancement and improved product at a cheaper price.
I would say robotaxis or something similar are more likely to replace private cars but I can't see them being ICE?
wingman,
I don't suppose it will change your firmly closed mind, but here's hoping. Read this;
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mass-balance-of-the-World-Glacier-M…
Are these the same 'scientists' that predicted mankind will run out of food, there'll be mass starvation and famine, by 1985 urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks, and oil running out by the year 2,000?
I probably read at least once a week about gullible people losing their money, or being scammed by conmen with unlikely schemes promising outlandish returns. Humans are a gullible lot.
About 15 years ago I used to debate with the peak oilers, many of whom had read a book called "Twilight in the Desert", by Matthew Simmons, which predicted a catastrophic, oil-less future. Did we run out of oil? Nope, we keep finding more of the stuff.
'Peak oil'...now there's a blast from the past that suckers got very excited over.
Not 'some predictions', most predictions are wrong.
Atomic bomb scientist Edward Teller made the observation...."prediction is dangerous, especially about the future".
Years ago 'experts' predicted that the oil price would be US$200 and even US$300 a barrel. What is it? US$78 a barrel.
Plains.
That aside, not really. Take for example, Auckland's west coast communities. Slips were the culprit and so far as I know, council's are not yet mapping land subject to slope instability. I'm just guessing, but I see that as even greater difficulty in remedying. Council's are pretty good now about flood mapping, but land instability is (I suspect) largely ignored. And in many cases, when a slip occurs, the property affected is (or should be as a matter of minimizing future harm) a total write off.
Coastal and surface flooding can be mitigated - slips in many cases cannot (most costly example I can think of being the Manawatu Gorge).
Just a grammatical comment. This author refers to an "adaption framework" whereas the previous government produced a "national CC adaptation plan".
Both are nouns - but differentiation is fuzzy.
The M-Webster's dictionary entry for adaption is this;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adaption
Seeing the two words as synonyms.
For clarity and consistency locally - I think it best to settle on the government's 'adaptation' lead - given this is a published national plan.
But that's just my thought and someone else might understand the correct/best word to use for either grammatical or otherwise reasons.
Absolutely, your insight is invaluable. In light of that, let's strategically deep dive into these challenges. By harnessing our collective expertise, we can bring to daylight these core issues, ensuring a comprehensive understanding. Through this process, we'll align our resources and implement actionable strategies for a seamless resolution and sustainable growth
Sea rise risk and overland flow path is already well documented in council GIS. This is free to look up. Surely this is as easy as stopping any new consents. Withdrawal of insurance is already underway and thus ability to mortgage.
Caveat emptor to new buyers. Bad luck to owners.
The insurance industry loves climate change hand wringers and government corporate welfare.
Normalised New Zealand natural Disaster insurance losses: 1968–2019
"More frequent losses due to extreme weather, notably storms of tropical, sub-tropical and extra-tropical origin, when combined and after adjusting for changing societal factors, show no trend over the record length."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2021.1905595
No trend? I guess by the time a trend of scientific significance appears, and it will, because that's what happens when more energy is applied to the climate system, we will be on the path of no return to stability. But hey, no consequences for you personally, right profile?
Seems to me that at the crux of the argument lies a wildly pessimistic assumption by climate alarmists that earth's climate possesses positive feedback characteristics. Positive feedback systems tend towards instability by amplifying change leading to exponential growth or decay causing instability ie. tipping points. Negative feedback systems on the other hand work to maintain equilibrium by counteracting changes. I think it's fair to say that most biological systems are negative feedback, and there’s no reason to think that the earth's climate is different.
The earth is heating up at a rate of ~0.13 degrees Celsius per decade according to the satellite tropospheric measurements which began in the 70s. There's no concrete evidence that CO2 is the earth's temperature control dial. On the contrary, we know from geological and archaeological evidence that changes in the earth temperature cause the oceans to degass or absorb CO2 with a delay of about 30 thousand years. Notice the inversion of causality there. In the distant past, the earth's CO2 concentration has been literally thousands of ppm, not the paltry 417 ppm or whatever it is now.
I'll tell you guys how gullible kiwis are.
In 1967 there was a big demonstration down Queen Street in Auck protesting over the implementation of a global navigation system called Omega. It relied on a few transmitters located around the planet.
Protesters said if this system was activated, NZ would become a target for atomic weapons. A school friend of mine participated, and dropped into my father's shop in Victoria St. West after the demo. My father enquired as to why he was participating in something he knew nothing about. His reply was "it's not every day you get to walk down Queen Street".
Now they've all got GPS in their cars and on their phones. Kiwis...the most easily-led lot on the planet.
You guys know how to get rich in NZ? Bet against the herd. My current bet is against the predicted property crash and it's looking like I'm already well ahead.
While some Kiwis maybe gullible (lets say not able to "apply education to real life) - I see it all the time. Including here imho.
Logic would dictate that last year's massive rain EVENTS, for a significant part of the North Island of NZ - its mere occurrence, raises the Real Risk of it re-occurring or to have even larger rain events.
The gullibles of today, are those that still sit with holdings/assets on flood plains/flood prone lands and expect "fairies and rainbows" and a not-repeat of last years disasters into the future.
Flood maps will be increased in size and those near lower lying land will see big losses.
Raising the assets 2 to 4 metres high or selling the lands for grazing only, looks like the only options many have to mitigate. These will be very expensive or loss making.
The Govt and Insurance companies will be the enforcers for this required, loss making, loss mitigation, retreat.
I've got a book here called "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds".
It explains some of the manias and bubbles humans convinced themselves of over the centuries.....pretty sure they're going to reprint it in a few years time with a chapter on 'The Global Warming Fraud'.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.