What should we do about harbour and coastal erosion and, if there's a cost, who should pay for it?

over 3 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

We have identified five options for tackling this issue. Read about there pros and cons in the FAQ 'What are our options?'. You should take into account the cost of your preferred choice and let us know how you think this should be funded (only affected areas, all ratepayers, a mix).

UPDATE 12 SEPTEMBER 2017: Adoption of the Policy:

Council has adopted a Coastal Erosion Responses Policy to enable consistent decision-making where Council-owned coastal land is affected by coastal erosion or subsidence.

To find out more, check out Council's website and the Decision Story

  • J.M Cowern over 3 years ago
    Managed Retreat might better be termed selective retreat as there are 4 properties jutting out at the southern end of Shaw Road which determined the line of the wall advancing well beyond what was necessary. Selected retreat (and obviously relocation landward of the rock revetment) would allow wave patterns to return to more natural patterns (less backwash and rips)Relocation fees could be waived similarly to how some Council fees have been waived where houses have been lifted in Walnutt/Marine Avenues.At Ohiwa a land swap for houses on vulnerable ground to higher ground occurred. This may be more problematic at Waihi Beach but, as the swapped sections would logically become reserve, other reserve land could perhaps be swapped e.g. Seaforth Rd though this might be considered still too close.Relocation costs would logically fall on the relocating owners, perhaps subdivisionfees for the swapped land falling on the community. In the short term Councils( ie, District and Regional) should be looking seriously for sources of sand for beach renourishment and planting. Unfortunately Regional Council is busily selling off its port dredgings but, as the northern harbour is silting there are opportunities for foreshore deposition.I suspect though that the authorities will defer consideration of these measures on that basis that they may not be long term and we will end at up nothing being done (sound familiar?)
  • Lesley Board over 3 years ago
    As far as rural land on the inner harbour is concerned the erosion can be completely controlled and at minimal cost by managed mangroves - there is the machinery now to cut off seedlings or even larger mangroves and they do not regrow. Therefore they can be limited to a narrow strip. Property owners should be allowed to maintain a narrrow access for small boats. If the cost of bringing in the machinery is reasonable then owners should pay but if it is exorbitant (as has happened in the past with ridiculously high fees for resource consents before any protection work can be attempted) then costs should be shared.It is in nobody's interest to have productive land lost to a community. .
  • Allan over 3 years ago
    Costs should fall where benefits lie. If there is a benefit to ratepayers to "protect" the beach then ratepayers should pay for it. Private property known to be subject to erosion (and its be known for at least 60 years to my knowledge) has a diminished value now. Compelling ratepayers to protect it and thus increase its value is just a way of subsidising the property owner with other people's money. Of course the property owners wish that others would pay for their mistake in buying or building close to a known erosion zone but ratepayers have many things to spend their money on and other people's property is not likely to be one of them. If property owners wish to share the increased value they would enjoy with those who foot the bill all well and good but I am yet to see a submission from a property owner volunteering to do so. Instead they seem to want to socialise the cost but privatise the benefit. Disguising their underlying purpose with nonsense about protecting/enhancing the beach is cute but it ignores the fact that its not the beach which is eroding, its the foreshore where their houses are. If these properties where anywhere other than on a beach this debate about who pays wouldn't be given any airtime. Let those who stand to benefit pay for it and don't let them sneak their hands into other people's pockets.
    Hide reply (1)
    • aligary over 3 years ago
      Agreed. The cost is the Private property owners' . And option 2a (soft option) should be the way to go to mitigate and repair coast damage.
  • coast over 3 years ago
    a continuous plan to have only affected areas paying for soft defences (tree plantings and vegetation) to prevent erosion, AND a 10 year plan for ratepayers in place, to assess erosion rates and introduce hard defences IF the erosion goes beyond a certain point. this would 1: make those people who own land in these areas take more responsibility for mitigating the erosion (also council should trust people to look after some areas, if they dont they suffer) 2: the 10 year plan can give security that the erosion will be controlled (after a certain point). if a line can be drawn where danger zones are (if they arent already) people on private land can be notified of these zones and issues to do with compensation for a natural disaster sorted out privately.
  • coolas over 3 years ago
    This is what needs to happen, set up a Tauranga Harbour Care. The solution is simple, the evidence is clear. http://www.harbourcare.co.nz/
  • eruerakoromete over 3 years ago
    The Department of Conservation (DOC) manage most of the foreshore. At Pukehina at least they have done absolutely nothing in regards to dune protection. They don't supply plants to property owners or interest groups out there, and have done no initiatives I'm aware of for the 20 years I've owned out there. They're a real disappointment. They're supposedly responsible for the foreshore but everyone else it appears is having to clean up their mess due to their failure.Cost should be put on DOC. If they can't manage the foreshore they should hand over to EBOP or some other entity more capable. If DOC don't want to hand over, then they should pay to remedy the situation. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
  • over 3 years ago
    Could one of the ways to fund the erosion protection be a rates rest for the land owners
  • melo 1 over 3 years ago
    I agree with Birdseye view. You hit the nail on the head. Let the effected property owners correct their erosion issues "...WITHOUT HUGE RESOURCE CONSENT COSTS". Labor and materials are expensive enough, without adding consultants and consents to double the price. The requests to mitigate should be simplified and dealt with through ONE COUNCIL, NOT TWO! Most of us have seen so much Council bureaucracy for so long, I hesitate to waste a few minutes giving my opinion here, as if it might make a difference. I would REALLY rather be an optimist but ....the tides are rising.
  • rainbow over 3 years ago
    I have enjoyed the discussion, however for opinion to be statistically significant it would be important to separate replies from ratepayers owning waterfront properties as they would be highly likely to be in full support of council protecting private property using finance from all ratepayers.
  • Kotuku over 3 years ago
    Education is the answer, there is far too little real understanding of global warming for most people to make an informed decision.For information on the climate sceptic lobby and who is funding them check out the Koch Brothers: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/For a clear commentary on current research go to: http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/In particular research the increased speed glaciers are melting in Antarctica and Greenland.Sea level rise is inevitable even though the rate of increase can be disputed.Hard barriers such as sea walls have proved ineffective, managed retreat is the only sensible solution. Replanting dunes and limiting foot traffic over them will slow erosion but planning for main roads and settlements on higher ground must be undertaken as soon as practicable. There is also the need to re-establish wetlands and other coastal environments as the coastline recedes.The cost should be met by a combination of Government and Council funding. Private land under threat is much more complex and a combination of Government support and insurance claims may be the answer.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Kahu over 3 years ago
      Please provide details of any significant scientifically established correlation between human activity and the warming of the earth's climate. This is getting more and more difficult seeing as there has been no global warming now for 18 years and 9 months - according to the satellite data records. [Disclaimer - my cheque from the Koch Brothers has apparently been lost in the mail.]
      Hide reply (1)
      • Auahi over 3 years ago
        I dont think you'll get your answer on here, you are probably better off asking an environmental scientist that researches human activities and climate change. Youve probably read alot of whats already out there, and maybe able to tell us where to focus
  • Stuart Cann over 3 years ago
    Western Bays District Council Erosion Discussion SubmissionsKey Background IssueThe most important issue that is fundamental to this debate is that protection of the beach for all users is paramount. This point is paramount ahead of all other property and infrastructure services.Causes of Erosion at Waihi Beach1. Offshore drift of sand.2. Human use of beaches causing damage to dune stability and damage to areas where protective dune plants exist. People persist in encroaching on foredune and dune face areas thereby causing erosion impacts3. Horses using beach in areas where houses exist.4. Existing houses and subdivisions on frontal dune areas as a result of past Council consents.5. Council decision to maintain an effluent outlet at 3 mile creek and keep open the creeks there and elsewhere on the beach rather than seeking a solution that avoids the impact on beach erosion.6. Council decisions over the years to permit evolvement of hard engineering works in front of selected beach areas that result in scouring and which then impact on non protected parts of the beach which are now suffering consequential erosion.7. Existence of freedom camping and day tripper parking at the Tuna Avenue road end which brings a significant increase in day trippers and campers who use the beach front adjacent to houses. These people in their ignorance encroach on foredune areas which have been carefully regenerated and planted with dune plants. There children are allowed to dig into the face of these dunes without any consideration for the damage they cause leading to erosion impacts. These people do not generally contribute to the costs arising from their actions.8. Other environmental factors including global warming as noted in the recent council surveys and adverse weather events such as cyclones.9. Lack of co-ordinated dune care organisation with sufficient budget to assist community involvement in dune protection work.How Should Erosion Causes be Tackled1. Offshore sand drift and environmental factors cannot be eliminated. They can only be dealt with by compensating measures. One solution has been to create hard engineering works in selected areas solely to protect adjacent property. Equity requires that other areas with erosion impacted property should be accorded the same protective measures or the existing engineering works remove, so that the consequential impacts elsewhere particularly in relation to other property is reduced. This is the option preferred by those property owners who do not currently have adequate erosion protection.2. Another option that may offset these environmental impacts is for a soft engineering work in front of adversely impacted property. This is the second option preferred by impacted property owners.3. A further option is a managed retreat of houses on beach front property so there is a deeper reserve barrier. If that occurred the affected beach front owners should be adequately compensated for their property values enabling them to purchase replacement property elsewhere on the beach. This is the third preference for impacted property owners.4. The fourth option referred to of doing nothing is unacceptable for impacted property owners.5. Horses should not be permitted at any time in areas where there are adjacent houses. Fines should be imposed where these rules are breached.6. Barriers and public notices indicating the dune protection work should be placed where dune protection work is undertaken so that humans are reminded that such areas are fragile and subject to erosion.7. Public parking and freedom camping areas should be removed from beach areas that are adjacent to houses and repositioned elsewhere on the beach front that is not impacting on adjacent houses.8. Establish an adequate budget and organisation supervised by Council that ensures there is a good level of community participation in dune protection works.How Should Erosion Protection Be Paid For1. There are competing views on this subject. On the one hand there are property owners who are most directly impacted by erosion. However these property owners have been allowed to acquire property and then been impacted by previous engineering works as a result of past council decisions and those decisions are effectively a community responsibility, meaning all ratepayers are responsible for the decisions. These affected properties are also impacted by wider public use of the beach by both residents living in less affected areas and by day trippers and campers. The community at large has provided facilities for non residents who do not contribute to costs. Again this is a total ratepayers responsibility.2. The other view is that only directly affected property owners should meet the cost. With respect this is not equitable given that the beach is used by all ratepayers. It does not recognise the egalitarian principles under which NZ society generally operates.3. If the frontal properties are not adequately protected with a fair ratepayer wide apportionment of erosion protection costs over time there will be a loss of those beach front properties. Council and the ratepayers generally will then face a loss of general rates that will be borne by remaining ratepayers. In addition lower lying properties behind the present frontage properties will face consequential erosion. These aspects indicate that costs should be spread over the entire ratepaying community. 4. If a managed retreat option is developed affected property owners should be compensated by the entire ratepayer community as the entire community will benefit from a larger beach front reserve area.
  • Birdseye veiw over 3 years ago
    Hello All The Regional and Local Councils under the RMA have been hell bent on owning or controlling the coastal strips or reserves for the public good , Doc is in there for the significant natural areas etc .so cost in the first instance is with the public in my veiw. The last RMA coastal plan changes were attempting to eleminate existing coastal structures I would suggest wbopdc have a good hard look at some of these rules to facilitate easier remedies to mitigate eroision effects in all areas public and private ie use of gabion baskets etc without huge resource consent costs . The regional council contractors have been allowed access to do silt movement surveys round here for years have always requested they send me the outcome report it never appeared, Perhaps someone in council could uncover the report as it is on the apata/pahoia area of the inner tauranga habour which is the area I have observed for years .i wish to follow this plan process and have input as i have a significant area of harbour coastline under my care.Some interesting feedback from people in both forums
  • Long time local over 3 years ago
    The WBOPDC have consented development on the foreshore reaching closer & closer to the waters edge. The general concensus voted on by the local ratepayers of Waihi Beach was for managed retreat. This was somehow ignored by the council. Talking to long-term beachfront residents the first time in their recollection when they lost a whole lot of their sand build up in front of their properties was in February of 1957. Therefore all properties who wanted to push forward their buildings after this date should cover the cost of their own property protection.
  • A Real Sceptic over 3 years ago
    Remember the 1970's - the world was running out of oil - look at it today the world is awash with oil - governments are always feeding fear about something to the populace - then it was global warming - what a crock - that's been changed to climate change - well i've been around a long time and everyday of my life the climate has changed everyday - read anywhere the sun influences our weather patterns much more than any so called man made influence - the latest fear being installed into us is that all our coastal properties will be all under water due to sea level rises - codswallop - apparently according to the worlds leading authority on sea levels the sea is not rising and talk of a metre rise in 100 years is a fabricated fallacy posted by certain scientists looking for government grants - erosion of the coastline is a cyclical event - in the 1950s we had some of the worst erosion ever caused by massive storms then credited to the nuclear tests on christmas island - then for years and years the coastline built up again - in my opinion I think there is an over-reaction and an obsession by local bodies and central government to draw away public sentiment to the matter of over charged rates and financial mismanagement that plagues local and central government - whats better than throw fear to alter peoples minds from whats really going on.
    Hide reply (1)
    • henry over 3 years ago
      Well said, Actual Recorded sea level rise in the Pacific over the last 100 - 150 years is 2mm / year not some IPCC computer generated rubbish.If you want to find some decent information about climate science go to www.nzclimatescience.net
  • Not happy! over 3 years ago
    I do not think the cost should be handed down to the ratepayers! The Western Bay of Plenty rates are already outrageous, some of the highest in the country! The councils consented to these developments now they should help to fix the problems.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Jayadawngee over 3 years ago
      Council cannot be blamed - its a case of buyer beware in every case.
  • Alan almost 4 years ago
    As has been mentioned elsewhere on this website, coastal erosion is a natural part of the cycle which sees uplift, weathering, erosion, and deposition of sediments offshore, which in turn become land in the future. Much of New Zealand is made of rocks formed in a deep trough, called a geosyncline, off the ancient continent of Gondawana. As such, coastal erosion cannot be prevented. Unfortunately the timeframe in which it takes place is very variable.During the 1970s there was an episode of accelerated coastal erosion in this area. This was caused by a series of storms in which wave setup, low atmospheric pressure and high spring tides coincided over many months to produce several extraordinarily large storms which made serious inroads into areas such as Papamoa, Omanu and Bowentown. The spit at Maketu was almost washed away, the storm waves washing over it to enter the estuary. A large carpark at Bowentown was completely washed away in one storm.The University of Waikato responded to the erosion events by carrying out two coastal erosion surveys, one for the Bay of Plenty beaches and the other, which I led, for the Eastern Coromandel beaches. Each survey recorded cross profiles along the beaches to locate the seaward extent of the dunes, the beach berm and nearshore topography. The reports of these are undoubtedly still available at the University library in Hamilton. Hopefully the decision makers in the Council will be very familiar with this research and the findings contained in the reports.One of the principal errors made by planners in coastal regions is that of underestimating the speed of change, even without any hypothesised long term sea level change. The equilibrium beach model of erosion and deposition tends to indicate that sand eroded from the beach is then replaced in the relatively short term to reform the beach much as it was originally. Thus planners have only to take into account this amount of sediment flux when planning the seaward extent of housing and other developments. Unfortunately this model is flawed when there is longshore drift, which removes sediment from the beach and transports it parallel to the shore (south eastwards in the Bay of Plenty case, to finally be deposited in a submarine trench), when several factors coincide to produce times of peak storminess, as occurred in the mid-1970s, and when the coastline is situated in a tectonically active region such as the Bay of Plenty coastline is. When these factors are included in the planning process and the rate of erosion is extrapolated over the longer term, maybe to hundreds of years, it could be seen how foolhardy it would be to expect a dynamic coastline to remain sufficiently stable to allow development where development has been permitted. The planners simply did not have the data necessary to make effective planning decisions because people have not lived in the area long enough to accumulate details of the extremes of weather and erosion potential that occur naturally.Off the eastern coast of the Bay of Plenty the Pacific tectonic plate is being subducted beneath the Indo-Australian tectonic plate at a rate about as fast as your toenails grow. (It is this subduction zone which is responsible for the coastal earthquakes in this region and for the geothermal and volcanic activity of Rotorua and the central North Island.) This has the effect of dragging downwards the area of sea floor immediately to the west of the subduction trench and causing uplift further inland, which has formed the Kaimai Ranges over a long period of time. Thus there is a hinge point somewhere close to the coast where seaward areas are sinking and western areas are rising. The beaches along this coastline lie on the sinking portion. Therefore the whole coastline is gradually sinking and, unfortunately, this is recorded at the Moturiki tidal datum as a change which is usually interpreted to be a rise in sea level, whereas it is most likely a fall in land level. Nothing that anyone can do will change this slow and inexorable process which is likely to continue for millions of years as it has done already. All we can do is live with it, or move elsewhere. It is the price of living in paradise.I urge the Councils in this area to read the reports of the coastal surveys and to require their planners to plan for the continuing erosive processes that are part and parcel of living in this dynamic, tectonically unstable region. Undoubtedly there will be calls for all sorts of measures to be taken, but all measures which aim to prevent or reduce these natural processes are simply doomed to failure and are an expensive waste of resources which could be used to progressively move development to higher ground.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Hinemoana over 3 years ago
      Yes, exactly right. The more sustainable option and least expensive is to work with nature, stop trying to beat it. Each man-made structure kills off a bit of biodiversity and ends up causing more problems for future generations. Council needs to take its head out of the sand.
    • Jayadawngee over 3 years ago
      People who purchase water-front properties must foot the bill for erosion on their own properties. Buyer Beware!
  • Jayadawngee over 3 years ago
    A mix of ratepayers and private property owners.
  • coolas almost 4 years ago
    We need to stop consenting infrastructure that messes with tidal flows and destroys existing natural ecological systems. We need to desist in allowing further resource consent to Port Authorities to dredge the harbour and displace sediment that is required to replenish the shoreline naturally. Land run off flows also need to be monitored for both volume and water purity to maintain as natural as levels as possible. Finally and most urgently, vigorous planting of indigenous vegetation is required all around the foreshore, natural biological and ecological systems need to be restored.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Hinemoana over 3 years ago
      Agree totally
  • rainbow almost 4 years ago
    All should contribute to coastal erosion as we all enjoy the coastal environment. However what should we contribute towards.*The protection of community facilities.*The planting of coastal trees and plants to protect dunes and eco sensitive areas.Not individual homes as everyone has the choice to live or not live in an area of potential erosion. New consents for only 'Transportable' houses seems a good compromise in areas of risk.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Auahi over 3 years ago
      Totally agree with you rainbow.
    • Hinemoana over 3 years ago
      I am not sure I agree with any protection, rather defeats the purpose of seeking a sustainable solution. Work with nature, not against. And certainly NO to ratepayers protecting private property.
  • pukehinian over 3 years ago
    There are only five WBOPDC options because the reports consistently identify a 1 metre rise in ocean levels due to climate change. But where is the other side of the story? NZ Prime Minister, Key, this morning claimed that while sea-level rise is expected, climate solutions are likely within fifty years. The council is under orders from central government to protect ratepayers and residents from the effects of climate change, so why not address the cause, rather than the effect? Certainly, we need more than one month of public consultation before such important decisions.
  • sarah lowndes almost 4 years ago
    i like the rock wall option, the cost should be born equally by the ratepayers and council. Sarah
  • ian almost 4 years ago
    can the dredged sand from the pukehina creek be carted to beach? council cost. Also more effort needed on foredune planting. fantastic supply of plants and work from council but i think we need it along whole beach not just the odd bach owner who cares
  • Mike almost 4 years ago
    Don't waste time talking about global warming it is too big a problem for our community to solve, Think more about how we solve the immediate problem of erosion. At Pukehina first we should rebuild the dunes with the sand dredged from the Pongakawa Stream followed by an intense dune planting programme. Don't leave it to a few volunteers, This is serious and would be a major project for the council, treat it as if it was a new expressway being built. We should also look at installing wooden breakwaters similar to the ones that have been very successful in retaining sand on the south coast of England. Rocks or retaining walls along the dunes will not work as the sea will just scour the sand around them.The whole community can enjoy our beaches so the whole community should share the cost of erosion protection. Beach house owners already pay much higher insurance premiums because of the fear of erosion.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • REB almost 4 years ago
      I couldn't agree more Mike. Make a plan and get stuck in an do it. It doesn't have happen over night it just needs to happen.
    • Kathy H almost 4 years ago
      We also live at Pukehina on the estuary side. I have put several queries to Marc at the council1. The land on the foreshore belongs to DOC , what contribution are they making towards the erosion2.We feel the sand dredging being done on a regular basis further upstream is silting up the estuary & will increase the flood risk3.Everyone should contribute towards any erosion scheme, we all enjoy the beaches & the motorhome owners & tourists & fishermen do too, now with the high rates & water charges the costs tp live here are already enough4.We agree with one of the other writers about the mangroves. They should be treated as a noxious weed & removed
      Hide reply (1)
      • Kathy H almost 4 years ago
        I have had a reply from Marc at the council & DOC will not accept any liability for erosion control even though they own the land on the estuary front!!! Sounds typical aye, lets charge the rate payers instead.
  • JM almost 4 years ago
    Pohutukawa trees were made for our coastline. Plant them abundantly and they will give us shade beauty and erosion protection as well.
  • Te Runanga o Ngati Whakaue ki Maketu almost 4 years ago
    Our interest is in coastal erosion. WBOPDC should be working with regional council in feeding into the coastal environmental plan. In some coastal areas the trucking in of surplus sand from local rivers eg. Pongakawa is an option. However council consents is difficult so WBOPDC needs to work more coloaboratively with coastal communities in the consent process. Grout walls, sea walls and re-establishment of rocks to slow down the process of erosion should all be reviewed for their pros and cons. Central Government, Regional Council should pay, I don't think it should fall exclusively on rate payers as everyone enjoys the coast - locals, iwi, tourists, politicians etc.
  • Francis Jackson almost 4 years ago
    Bill,Serious Coastal Erosion in the WBOPDC will happen and it could be sooner than many people may think and Council must stop the issue of Building Consents except for easily transportable buildings. As a recent example, a family at Ohiwa has just obtained a Resource Consent to replace their home but the NEW building is required to be built in separate sections on piles for easy transport in the event of any future erosion.Erosion Protection is the Home owners sole responsibility and cost and NOT a council ratepayers cost.Some examples of Coastal Erosion including the near East Coast are, In the late 1960s the then Waiapu County Council granted subdivsion consent to a large coastal area near the old Hicks Bay Freezing works. Houses were built and within a period of only 10 years from the start of the first building all were gone some taken by the sea and others having to be removed by House Transporters.At the old Township of Waima near Tokomaru Bay the coastal erosion has taken many houses and buildings.At just East of the Waiotahi Pipi Beds and Beach near Opotiki there was 15 years ago a large Green Grass area where 2 large Toatom Poles had stood for many years, this is now all gone to Erosion and the sea requiring the 2 Toatom poles to be removed and re erected near the Surf Club.The old Ohiwa Township consisting of Houses, Hotel, stores etc once situated just East of the current Ohiwa Harbour Entrance is now ALL gone taken by sea Erosion.All the above are many reasons why Councils must act now and stop the issue of building consents in likely Coastal Hazard areas.
    Hide reply (1)
    • coolas almost 4 years ago
      Absolutely, Council has to stop consenting low lying & marginal land, even if it has been built on previously and now at risk.
  • liz almost 4 years ago
    Thanks everyone for your thoughts so far. We are getting some great discussion and appreciate the information you are providing. For anyone yet to contribute, please remember we are very keen to hear from everyone who has a view! You don’t need to have an understanding of the technical information or be an expert to participate. Simply let us know what you think.Liz Davies, Council’s Policy and Planning Manager
  • Darrell Hellier almost 4 years ago
    I came to Matapihi because I married a local woman 20 years ago. Before her father passed away he pointed out his boundary and where they walked 60 years ago. I watched his hand in disbelief as it is now well under water and I am talking close to 100 metres. I look after the local cemetery and the boundary was pointed out to m,e and it again went well out to sea. Once after heavy rain erosion came and some feet produced out of the cliff side. I asked around how was this happening and some locals informed me it is since the bridge across Maungatapu was constructed. I now see after watching the tides it has nowhere to go. At least a third of the tide is held up due to the restriction from the bridge entrances and when it is held up it swirls in an attempt to get through. Hence the damage to the land.Who will fix it and how? Don't know. But I am pretty sure this site is only set up to satisfy the council they have given the locals the opportunity to voice concerns. Will they act? Like the erosion. Wait until it is non repairable. Keep on developing council and watch it fall around your ears
  • Andre Hock almost 4 years ago
    Why not charge the emitters of the Green house gasses and stop the worst of the soon to be catastrophic warming (3.6 -7c with current emissions) Rate payers/Home owners, the responsible ones should not shoulder the harm and consequential cost of the soon to be escalating cost of the selfishness of others .Council as the voice of the community, should be headed itself for zero carbon in the next decade.
    Hide Replies (6)
    • Kahu almost 4 years ago
      Please provide details of any significant scientifically established correlation between human activity and the warming of the earth's climate. This is getting more and more difficult seeing as there has been no global warming now for 18 years and 9 months - according to the satellite data records.
      Hide Replies (5)
      • Auahi almost 4 years ago
        Have you checked NASA website? surely you have researched enough about pollution and weather patterns to know our ocean temperatures are changing in more extreme ways? in saying that we ALL contribute to the stresses on our planet by living the life of convenience & being consumers. Reduce ur consumption.
        Hide Replies (4)
        • Kahu almost 4 years ago
          My comment was in relation to "greenhouse gasses ... and catastrophic warming 3.6-7C)" not pollution. Where is the significant scientifically established correlation between human activity and the warming of the oceans? Certainly not on the NASA site - or any other site. As Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace says, "As I have stated publicly on many occasions, there is no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age. If there were such a proof through testing and replication it would have been written down for all to see."We should all be concerned about pollution. By all means reduce consumption of consumer trinkets etc. How is your carbon-sink pine forest going? Mine's growing well, down Gisborne way. How's your PV solar installation performing? Mine's running really well and saving grid consumption.How's your 'living off the land' working out? Apart from potatoes we don't purchase fruit or veges. My "stresses on the planet" are pretty low.
          Hide Replies (3)
          • Auahi almost 4 years ago
            I think the US researches @ NOAA found that CO2 levels reached 400ppm in March this year for a whole month, which was credited to us humans. But my question to you might be, do you really believe that we do not contribute to Global warming with our greenhouse gases?? fair enough since im not knowledgable enough to convince otherwise, all i know that concentrations of CO2 have increased, anyhuMy carbon sinc, i dont have enough money to own a forest, i come from the Ureweras, ive been involved with restoration and conservation all my life, including in Gisborne, may have even worked for you once, I dont own my house here in the Western bay but i conserve/reduce ect, and dwn the east coast we have no power, I too have a vegie garden, grows well enough that i can share with others in the community, I contribute to carbon emission, cause i do have to drive 30kms to work. :/ I would ride if WBOP drivers could drive more considerately..
            Hide Replies (2)
            • Kahu almost 4 years ago
              Absolutely the CO2 levels are 400ppm+ (and we were told we were going to be doomed if they exceeded 350ppm) and yes humans contribute to CO2 but no one has yet scientifically established any correlation between human activity and the warming of the earth's climate. We are being royally conned by the IPCC. Appreciate that you walk the walk and not just talk the talk, and don't sweat about the CO2 emissions from driving they are beneficial not harmful - CO2 is great plant food, it makes your and my vegetables grow!
              Hide reply (1)
              • Auahi almost 4 years ago
                Thanx Kahu, although i will always worry about my emmissions & b conservative. far too many people dont care about the environment around us.