"... since 2010, New Zealand had incurred $64b in costs from natural hazards, at least $19b of which came from central government.
The research showed that 97% of the central government expenditure was on responding to and recovering from natural disasters, with only 3% spent on risk reduction and resilience."
#MartySharpe, 2026
#HatTip to @norightturnnz for the link (see the post above for a link to the post referencing this)
(1/2)
"... since 2010, New Zealand had incurred $64b in costs from natural hazards, at least $19b of which came from central government.
The research showed that 97% of the central government expenditure was on responding to and recovering from natural disasters, with only 3% spent on risk reduction and resilience."
#MartySharpe, 2026
#HatTip to @norightturnnz for the link (see the post above for a link to the post referencing this)
(1/2)
“The figures make it clear: we cannot afford to remain reactive. International research shows that every $1 invested in risk reduction saves at least $4 in response and recovery."
Transition Programme Business Case - Land Use Transition in Tairāwhiti, quoted by #MartySharpe, 2026
(2/2)
"Its stupid. It's short-sighted. And its simple cheapness. The government just... doesn't want to pay."
@norightturnnz, 2026
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2026/02/climate-change-sin-of-cheapness.html
Or, some members of the current Cabinet have extractments (usually referred to as "investments") in Te Tai Rāwhiti, which would lose value if the plan to transition away from plantation forestry goes ahead. They're choosing personal pecuniary gain over the public good. As they do again, and again, and again.
Note: just a theory. Fact check me.
