Tailrisk Economics has looked at the recent NCCRA published by the Government and found it so flawed that it shouldn’t be regarded as a scientific document. An example:
At first sight many of the risk assessments appear to be overblown, and in some cases
rather hysterical. For example, taking the first of the human domain assessments: the
risk to social cohension, we are told that the consequences by 2050 will be extreme.
An extreme human domain outcome is described in the Methods report as follows:
Health, safety and wellbeing significantly compromised across whole of society. The
happiness and satisfaction of hapū and iwi are severely affected. Permanent disruption to
education, employment and community services. Patterns of daily activity and behaviour
unable to continue. Coping range of all communities exceeded
All of this is expected to occur in thirty years when temperatures are expected to
have increased by less than one degree; when the sea level has risen by perhaps 15
centimetres; and there has been a very limited increase, if any, in ‘extreme’ climate
Yep 15 cms of sea level rise in 30 years was deemed an extreme risk to social cohesion that would disrupt NZ. And the evidence for this:
A paper that discussed a large Canterbury wildfire. It found that the wildfire was discussed by people in the local pub and that there was a barbeque for the firefighters.
They reviewed 23 of the assessments made in the plan against the evidence base for them. 17 of the 23 were scored between 0 and 2 out of 10!