Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Cosmic Yak]

Look at the name of the thread, Yak:

It says GLOBAL warming,

It does, and therefore discussion of what measures specific countries are taking to mitigate global warming is exactly on topic.

not what some UK consumer site (with the PR it gets from providers)

Once again, you are showing that you have no idea what Which is, nor what it does.
It is a consumer protection group. The sole purpose of Which is to investigate PR claims by companies and check whether they are true or not, so that consumers can make informed choices. That's what they do. That's all they do.

thinks is the company you should get your power from.
What level of research/audit you think that Site got to do to corroborate the companies' claims?

No, I'm not playing your game. Look at how we got here. You responded to a post about UK energy providers by claiming that there was a monopoly, and consumers could not choose a company.
I showed you that wasn't true. Rather than admit your error, you retreated to the next fall-back position, which was that there was no way to tell how these companies generated their power. Again, I demonstrated that was an error. Again, you refused to acknowledge your mistake, but retreated yet again to another position, again based on an evidence-free argument from incredulity: Now you don't believe that the information consumers have access to is accurate. Every step of the way, you retreat to a new and still unevidenced position: it's an infinite regression of arguments from incredulity.
You are also arguing like a conspiracy theorist. You demand an ever more detailed level of evidence for my claims, and no amount of detail will satisfy you. Your own claims, on the other hand, are grand, sweeping declarations thrown out without a single shred of evidence to back them up. This double standard of evidence is just what conspiracy theorists hold to, and it's not a standard I will accept.
So, I'm not accepting your evidential double standards, and insistence that we simply take your word as gospel. I have made my claim, and provided evidence to support it. If you want to dispute Which's methods and findings, then the burden of proof is on you to show your detailed and factual reasons for rejecting these findings.

It's up to You to make clear that you are only talking about a specific location/market, excluding everything else.

You jumped in on a conversation between myself and dann: I am under no obligation to ensure that someone not in that conversation is reading it carefully. That's up to you. The numerous and specific references to the UK should have given you a clue that, at that time, we were discussing the UK.
As for "excluding everything else", that is an outright lie. I specifically invited you to show evidence on this topic concerning the rest of the world, here:

If you want to broaden the scope of this particular topic, how about providing something to back it up? You know, like maybe, evidence or something?

This semantics game is really tiresome.

There is no semantics game happening here. There is you not reading posts properly, and also you making unevidenced claims, along with a great deal of arguments from incredulity coming from you too. No semantics involved at all, and I wonder why you choose to characterise this discussion as such. If you want to move this debate along in a meaningful and productive way, then acknowledge your multiple errors, and back up your claims with evidence. Simples.

 

[Aridas]

In America.
Not worldwide.

Sure. That was something of a given in what I said, though. The only part of my post that could apply more worldwide was "among groups that depend more heavily on the fossil fuel industries," but taking such that way would be ignoring the context.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Sure. That was something of a given in what I said, though. The only part of my post that could apply more worldwide was "among groups that depend more heavily on the fossil fuel industries," but taking such that way would be ignoring the context.

Even in the States, though, a majority of the public believes that global warming is a major problem. dann's claim that everyone except him has been brainwashed is just not true.
I also wanted to ensure that we don't just confine the discussion to America. This forum is now mostly Americans, and there is a tendency to only talk about the US, as if that was the only country in the world. It's rather annoying for us non-Americans!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Even in the States, though, a majority of the public believes that global warming is a major problem.

Seven Key Gallup Findings About the Environment on Earth Day

April 22, 2024

Consistent with recent years, 42% of Americans worry “a great deal” about global warming or climate change. Gallup also finds 59% of Americans believing that global warming has already begun to happen. However, 55% do not think it will pose a serious threat in their own lifetime.

That's a lot of people with their heads in the sand.

Meanwhile...

Our turbulent skies

"If you look at a FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] report, in 10 years from 2012 to 2022, only 34 passengers were seriously injured in 163 turbulence instances, so it's very low. It's over 25 years since a passenger has been killed in commercial aircraft turbulence - that was in 1997."

That was until May 22 this year, when a passenger died of a suspected heart attack and 30 people were injured after a Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300ER hit turbulence...

Evidence also shows turbulence is becoming more common with the impacts of climate change.

"There have been some recent studies showing increases in instances of clear-air turbulence - about a 15 per cent increase over the last 40 years," Turner says.

You see, we don't have to do anything about GHG emissions from airliners because eventually Nature will solve the problem for us - by making it too risky to fly!

This article is good news because it shows that the (mainstream) media is no longer equivocating over whether 'climate change' is a serious problem. The more reports we get like this the faster it will sink in that Global Warming is not just about a small increase in average temperature.

It needs to 'get real' for people to appreciate the urgency of the matter, and this is one example. Next time you are thinking about taking that long distance airplane flight for your holiday, you just might want to consider that the chances of having a bumpy ride (or worse) are increasing. And when you do take the flight (because you will anyway) and it does get bumpy, Global Warming will become real for you too!

 

[The Atheist]

That's a lot of people with their heads in the sand.

Depends how you define "serious threat".

Even by the end of this century, I don't think the warming will be having a serious impact on more than a tiny fraction of people.
_____________________________

Meanwhile, it looks like the warming is giving Alaska some much-needed colour:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment...ers-turning-orange-alaska-alarming-scientists

This should be a rallying cry for the state, Bristol said.

“It’s the kind of thing that can really bring Alaskans together to think more concretely about what we should be doing now, and in the next few years,” he said.

“I don’t exactly know what those solutions are right now, but it’s our job to figure it out.”

Stopping exports of a jillion barrels of oil a year doesn't appear to be on the table.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

"There have been some recent studies showing increases in instances of clear-air turbulence - about a 15 per cent increase over the last 40 years," Turner says.

Reading the article I don't see that they corelated that with the increase in air traffic in the last 40 years? ( Yes there was a big dip 2020 )

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Reading the article I don't see that they corelated that with the increase in air traffic in the last 40 years? ( Yes there was a big dip 2020 )

You were quite happy with the lack of correlation between the rise in meat consumption and the rise in global population. What's changed?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Depends how you define "serious threat".

Even by the end of this century, I don't think the warming will be having a serious impact on more than a tiny fraction of people.

Nobody cares about your uninformed opinion.

The Global Economy Will Be 31% Poorer By 2100 Because Of Climate Change

The study concludes that every 1 Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) degree increase in atmospheric temperatures will lead to a 12% global GDP decline. It notes that the consequences of not addressing carbon emissions in the present will be “multiple orders of magnitude above previous estimates” as the remainder of the century unfolds. It further observes that a unilateral decarbonization policy will be a cost-effective means of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and argues that the social cost of carbon is US $1,056 per ton if we don’t address unilateral decarbonization quickly. For those who balk at a carbon tax or levy in the United States and other countries including Canada, the current federal carbon price of CDN $80 (US $58.77) seems laughably insignificant in light of this newly published research...

If business-as-usual continues, the conclusion is a decline in the present value of economies on average across the world amounting to 31% which differs dramatically from IPCC reports that state a 1 Celsius temperature rise reduces global GDP by 1 to 3%...

The authors of the study, however, refute the consensus opinion of IPCC reports that estimate 1 to 3% economic output declines. Instead, they look at time-series global projections, the increased number of extreme climate events, reinsurance financial industry payouts, global and country-level modelling, and three climate-economy datasets covering 173 countries with one spanning the last 120 years...

Global temperature shocks predict a large and persistent rise in extreme climatic events that cause economic damage: extreme temperature, extreme wind, and extreme precipitation...

What the geoscience data shows related to climate change is that global outcomes are affected by ocean temperatures and atmospheric humidity rather than local temperature idiosyncracies. Warmer areas of the planet are more severely affected than colder areas. Whether you live in a high-income or low-income country, climate change experiences produce similar effects. That’s why taking a global perspective seems appropriate with the disturbing results a wake-up call for climate policy makers. The paper concludes that a rise of 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) by 2100, 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) higher than today will produce damage equal to "fighting a war domestically and permanently."

You say global warming will seriously impact no more than 'a tiny fraction of people' by 2100. Yet right now in the north Island of New Zealand, people are already being seriously impacted. My brother is panicking about how much his rates and insurances are going up. My house insurance already went up 40% this year, and rates are locked into a 59% increase in the next 3 years.

Insurance companies will not be caught short. Right now they are calculating when the next extreme weather is likely to occur and how much they will have to charge us to remain profitable. It may not be long before insurance becomes the largest cost many of us have to bear - or go without it and risk everything.

By 2033 (when the average global temperature reaches 1.5 °C and peak reaches 2.0 °C) we can pretty much guarantee that extreme weather events like Cyclone Gabrielle will be a regular occurrence here - and everyone will have to pay the price.

Stopping exports of a jillion barrels of oil a year doesn't appear to be on the table.

It will happen eventually, but perhaps not until all the oil tankers have been sunk by extreme weather and/or wars make trade impossible. Its already happening in Ukraine, which may actually be one of the best incentives to get off oil and gas that we have right now.

Humans are stupid. Yesterday I watched a YouTube video about how Europe promoted diesel as a fuel that would lower CO₂ emissions. The very idea is laughable, yet people fell for it because it also promised cheaper motoring. Only problem is the trend towards larger cars has wiped out what little advantage diesel had, while the pollution is causing devastating health effects. Of course the fact that oil companies didn't know what to do with this previously useless byproduct of gasoline production had nothing to do with it.

Enter diesel-gate, the totally predictable result of lowering permitted emissions below what car manufacturers could achieve. Volkswagen's penance for that was to ramp up EV production, but it isn't going well. German car makers are now lobbying the government to save them from foreign EV makers like Tesla and BYD who are undercutting them with cheaper better products. It won't help. Even tougher pollution regulations are coming and gas car makers won't be able to meet them, while EVs will fly through.

The stupid thing is that EVs will win out in Europe not because they reduce our dependence on oil, but because they don't produce health-destroying air pollution. People see the smog and feel the effects of breathing it, but CO₂ is invisible and the effects are disconnected from its creation. Most people have no appreciation of the fact that for every kg of petrol they put in their car 3 kg of CO₂ comes out the tailpipe. The average car spews out about 4 tons of the stuff per year. Imagine if you were forced to collect it all and put it back in the ground (and somehow make it stay there) - how much would that cost? Yet that's what we will eventually have to do.

 

[The Atheist]

The Global Economy Will Be 31% Poorer By 2100 Because Of Climate Change

One study that admits it's completely at odds with IPPCC and contains no hard evidence.

The authors of the study, however, refute the consensus opinion of IPCC reports that estimate 1 to 3% economic output declines.

I\ll stick with IPCC's assessment, thanks.

You say global warming will seriously impact no more than 'a tiny fraction of people' by 2100. Yet right now in the north Island of New Zealand, people are already being seriously impacted. My brother is panicking about how much his rates and insurances are going up. My house insurance already went up 40% this year, and rates are locked into a 59% increase in the next 3 years.

That's the very definition of a tiny impact. Insurance premiums are up - ho hum. First world problems indeed.

Insurance is a fraction of people's expenditure. Auckland rates are up a whole 7.5% and none of that is due to climate change.

Cyclone_Gabrielle#Hawke's_Bay"]Cyclone Gabrielle[/URL] will be a regular occurrence here - and everyone will have to pay the price.

Crystal balls on special this week?

Were you here when Bola hit? One bad cyclone every 40 years is no big deal.

I

You blaming Ukraine on climate change?

Most people have no appreciation of the fact that for every kg of petrol they put in their car 3 kg of CO₂ comes out the tailpipe.

2.4 kg per kg of fuel. Why exaggerate?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You were quite happy with the lack of correlation between the rise in meat consumption and the rise in global population.

I don't recall saying I was happy about that.

I'm neither happy or unhappy about things I don't care about.

What's changed?

The discussion.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I don't recall saying I was happy about that.

I'm neither happy or unhappy about things I don't care about.

Oh, you want to play pedantic semantics, now? How petty.
OK, let me rephrase. I grant that in your posts on this forum, you never express happiness. Your posts ooze misery and cynicism. Try this:
You accepted the rise of meat consumption despite it not being correlated against the rise in global population, and used that to advance your arguments. This contrasts with your demand for correlation of a rise in turbulence with a rise in air traffic- a piece of evidence you now demand because it suits your argument. This is a double standard of evidence, one often used by conspiracy theorists and other dishonest debaters. I think this is wrong, and am wondering how you justify this?

The discussion.

No, running away from your own double standards of evidence won't work. This is a sceptics' forum, remember?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

One study that admits it's completely at odds with IPPCC and contains no hard evidence.

I\ll stick with IPCC's assessment, thanks.

I predict their assessment will turn out to be conservative, as usual.

That's the very definition of a tiny impact. Insurance premiums are up - ho hum. First world problems indeed.

I guess you must be rich then. For many of us insurance bills are becoming a big problem. You can't not afford to have insurance when an extreme weather could destroy everything, and banks will insist on it anyway (unlike me, most people don't buy houses and cars with cash).

Insurance is a fraction of people's expenditure.

An increasing fraction. 2 years ago my gross income was NZ$12,500 (thanks, Covid!). If it wasn't for some money put aside I would not have been able to pay my insurance bill of over $2,000. Rates were $2,400 and insurances $2,300, a combined 38% of my income. If it wasn't for getting the pension from November 2022 I would be bankrupt by now.

Auckland rates are up a whole 7.5% and none of that is due to climate change.

Good for you that they have been able to keep the rates increase low, but that doesn't mean 'climate change' isn't costing you.

Category 3 property buy-out information between Auckland Council and the government

Last updated: 14 May 2024

The Governing Body and the New Zealand Government have agreed to share the cost of storm recovery and resilience work in the Auckland region.

The co-funding agreement includes:
- almost $2 billion worth of investment in Auckland’s storm recovery and resilience programme
- a 50/50 split of funding to buy Category 3 properties.

Category 3 buy-outs
$774 million will be spent purchasing an estimated 700 residential properties...

Government funding for these projects

$1.076 billion secures the cost-share agreement of government funding for these projects.

This includes:
- 62 per cent of the estimated capital cost of the resilience projects ($380 million)
- 79 per cent of the transport recovery costs ($110 million Crown funding and an expected $199 million from the National Land Transport Fund via Waka Kotahi)
- 50 per cent of the cost of Category 3 buy-outs ($387 million).

Were you here when Bola hit? One bad cyclone every 40 years is no big deal.

I was right here and it wasn't nearly as bad as Gabrielle. I also remember Giselle, and it wasn't nearly as bad here either.

BTW the time between them was 20 years and 35 years, not 40 years. In the future we can expect them more frequently.

Cyclone Gabrielle: Stronger than Bola?

Gabrielle appears to have been a stronger cyclone system than even 1988′s destructive Bola or 1968′s Giselle, with one early analysis showing it carried historically low pressure levels.

Having claimed at least 11 lives, displaced thousands of people and caused billions of dollars in damage, Gabrielle is already considered New Zealand’s worst weather event this century.

In a reanalysis of head-to-head pressure values, Gabrielle was found to be more intense than Bola – a system that similarly devastated the North Island’s East Coast – and also Giselle, largely remembered for creating ferocious storm conditions that sank the inter-island ferry Wāhine in Wellington Harbour...

At its minimum, Gabrielle’s low pressure plummeted to an estimated 963 hectopascals (hPa) and reached levels of 966.8hPa near Great Barrier Island.

That compared with Bola and Giselle’s respective lowest values of 982hPa and 967hPa.

“The lower the pressure, the faster winds are going to be blowing in toward the centre of the storm,” explained Niwa meteorologist Ben Noll...

In Gabrielle’s case, however, the system likely had more fuel for heavy rain, given total atmospheric moisture in the most recent decade happened to be 5.3 per cent higher than in the 1960s – and 3.2 per cent higher than in the 1980s.

“The atmosphere is moister now than it was when Giselle and Bola existed; if you were to re-run those two systems in the present climate, you’d expect them to produce more rain.”

The wild influence of climate change, certainly, was inter-weaved with many of Gabrielle’s driving factors.

Along with the compounded effects of three years of La Niña, it’d contributed to abnormal warmth in the tropical waters where Gabrielle formed up and quickly reached category 3 strength, before veering southward into the Tasman.

But intensity doesn't worry me as much as the high probability that these southward 'wanderings' will become more frequent. One every 35 years we can handle, one every 5 years would be devastating.

You blaming Ukraine on climate change?

No, I'm saying the Ukraine war is helping to get Europe off oil and gas.

2.4 kg per kg of fuel. Why exaggerate?

Wrong! Petrol is lighter than water.

 

[The Atheist]

An increasing fraction. 2 years ago my gross income was NZ$12,500 (thanks, Covid!).

Which would put you firmly in the bottom 1% of earners, so how it affects you isn't something the other 99% is concerned with.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Which would put you firmly in the bottom 1% of earners, so how it affects you isn't something the other 99% is concerned with.

Rates and insurance increases only impact the bottom 1% of earners?

'Very significant' rise in home insurance premiums revealed

House insurance premiums jumped by more than 30 percent in a year in some parts of New Zealand...

A climate change researcher specialising in disaster economics says the data is a taste of what could come as the risk of climate change-driven natural hazards, especially flooding, increases...

The other major factor was a jump in costs for reinsurance - essentially, insurance for insurers in the event of a major natural disaster.

That had increased by 25 to 40 percent for many insurers in the last year as a response to multiple severe weather events around the world, including Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland Anniversary floods, Grafton said.

"Some reinsurers have made it quite clear that they've been somewhat surprised by the number that have occurred, and the severity of those events, globally."

Finity Principal Simon Young said prior to last year, a severe weather event in New Zealand that cost insurers more than $300 million was "inconceivable".

"And suddenly you have two billion-dollar events that are not earthquakes."...

"I would anticipate over the very long term - that 30 to 50-year period - we will see areas that the insurance industry as a whole might decide are just uninsurable.

What our house and contents insurance survey found

Just over 60% of respondents in our latest insurance satisfaction survey were concerned about the cost of house insurance. Another 52% were worried about the cost of contents insurance.

Of those respondents without contents insurance, 18% didn’t renew or cancelled their policy because of the high cost; while 8% of homeowners made the same choice for their house insurance. This continues a pattern we started to see last year...

Wellington is still the most expensive region to insure a standard and large home. The median premium for a standard house is $3,733, while a large house comes in at $5,088.

It’s also harder to shop around for house insurance in Wellington and Christchurch. AA Insurance, AMI and State Insurance all won’t provide online quotes without a risk assessment of the property in these areas...

What’s behind the price increases?

In the past 10 years, according to Statistics NZ Consumer Price Index data, house insurance has increased 97% while contents has gone up 48%.

That upward trend doesn’t look like it’s going to stop anytime soon.

The cost of reinsurance, extreme weather events, and increased use of risk-based pricing on individual properties by insurers are all factors in the price rises...

So, is there anything that could bring prices down?

Insurer IAG (with brands AMI, State and NZI) says better planning by local councils, investing in protection and resilience measures, and retreating from at-risk places will help bring insurance prices down.

While central government released a climate adaptation plan in 2022, it’s local councils that are on the front line of protecting their communities from the impacts of climate change.

Work on this is underway, but it could take years, and deep pockets, to ensure New Zealanders are out of harm’s way...

 

[The Atheist]

It affects "some people", namely those who choose to live in areas under threat,

If you choose to live in a flood zone, expect to pay more. Doesn't affect me at all.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It affects "some people", namely those who choose to live in areas under threat,

If you choose to live in a flood zone, expect to pay more. Doesn't affect me at all.

I love the way you think you can avoid the effects of global warming just by moving house.
Your callous lack of concern for those who are already being affected is noted with disapproval.

 

[The Atheist]

I love the way you think you can avoid the effects of global warming just by moving house.

Nice little strawman there, mate. Is there a special on them this week?

I was talking about flood plains, and I've always chosen not to live on one. I don't live in an earthquake-prone area, or on top of a magma field either. That I couldn't give a rat's arse about fools who do is fine by me. I'm very happy that my insurance premiums aren't impacted by morons who can't see where floods happen, and they happen a lot in NZ. We get a lot of rain.

Speaking of which, I hope their insurance is well and truly up to date, because there's going to be an awful lot of water arriving over the country in 7-10 days' time.



Your callous lack of concern for those who are already being affected is noted with disapproval.[/QUOTE]

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I couldn't give a rat's arse...

Yes, we noticed.

I'm very happy that my insurance premiums aren't impacted...

Are you sure about that? Reinsurance rates are going up globally due to global warming, and everybody is being affected.

I was talking about flood plains, and I've always chosen not to live on one. I don't live in an earthquake-prone area, or on top of a magma field either...

So you carefully chose the one spot in Auckland which isn't near a volcano, fault line, or area that could be flooded. Congratulations. And you also found a spot that can't suffer from landslides or 270 kph winds, right?

But you are still being affected because when others - who for one reason or another have to live where they do - suffer from extreme weather events the costs are borne by everyone. When a farmer in Hawke's Bay is wiped out by unprecedented flooding that raises the price of food. Then other workers have to earn more, businesses offer fewer products and poorer service, unemployment and crime increases, people become despondent and the mood of the whole country darkens.

You pretend purport to care about poor people with your constantly going on about the lack of affordable housing etc., but now we know the truth - you couldn't give a rat's arse about anyone but yourself.

Actually I suspect you enjoy it. It must really boost your ego to imagine you are one of the few geniuses who has found a place to live that isn't affected by Global Warming, relaxing in your palace while you watch the rest of the World burn.

 

[The Atheist]

Are you sure about that? Reinsurance rates are going up globally due to global warming, and everybody is being affected.

The enormous weight of increased premiums is being rightly borne by those who choose to live in at-risk areas.

So you carefully chose the one spot in Auckland which isn't near a volcano, fault line, or area that could be flooded.

Wasn't very hard. The really funny thing is, the parts of Auckland most at risk of volcanic eruption and rising seas are the most expensive parts.

Congratulations. And you also found a spot that can't suffer from landslides or 270 kph winds, right?

100%. Zero chance of tsunami as well, unlike Tamaki Drive.

But you are still being affected because when others - who for one reason or another have to live where they do - suffer from extreme weather events the costs are borne by everyone. When a farmer in Hawke's Bay is wiped out by unprecedented flooding that raises the price of food. Then other workers have to earn more, businesses offer fewer products and poorer service, unemployment and crime increases, people become despondent and the mood of the whole country darkens.

I repeat, floods aren't new to NZ. None of these were down to climate change: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/keyword/floods

Pro tip - it rains a lot in NZ and we get frequent floods.

You pretend purport to care about poor people with your constantly going on about the lack of affordable housing etc., but now we know the truth - you couldn't give a rat's arse about anyone but yourself.

Pathetic attempt at poisoning the well. Poor people don't choose to live in at-risk areas, rich people do.

Actually I suspect you enjoy it. It must really boost your ego to imagine you are one of the few geniuses who has found a place to live that isn't affected by Global Warming, relaxing in your palace while you watch the rest of the World burn.

Yeah, it's great. Nothing pleases me more than first-world people crying over a few dollars as whole countries are under threat.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Nice little strawman there, mate. Is there a special on them this week?

I was talking about flood plains,

Well, actually, restricting the discussion to floodplains, and more specifically the area around your own house, was your strawman of Roger Ramjets' point. RR was clearly talking about more than just flooding, and more than just your own neighbourhood.

and I've always chosen not to live on one.

Floodplains, in my understanding, are low-lying areas next to rivers, which are prone to flooding. I don't see the connection between that, and the Auckland Anniversary floods referenced earlier. These floods were caused by excesive rainfall over a wide area, not flooding from rivers bursting their banks. Again, this is my understanding, and I am ready, as always, to be corrected on this.

I don't live in an earthquake-prone area, or on top of a magma field either.

Are earthquakes and volcanoes exacerbated by climate change? What is the relevance of this? Also, are you saying that the whole of Japan, and the other countries around the Ring of Fire, should be evacuated? Also Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and all the other countries prone to earthquakes? If so, that is a ridiculous and entirely unrealistic expectation.

That I couldn't give a rat's arse about fools who do is fine by me. I'm very happy that my insurance premiums aren't impacted by morons who can't see where floods happen, and they happen a lot in NZ. We get a lot of rain.

I wonder, then, if you expect anyone to give a rat's arse about you? If society as a whole functioned according to your view here, well, there wouldn't be any society. Communities and civilisations work by people helping each other: I don't know if you're aware of this, but that's the way it works.
You also appear to be unaware of NZ's policy of managed retreat. Areas most likely to flood are being abandoned, and those people relocated. Do you support your government's endeavours, or do you think they should adopt your attitude, not give a rat's arse, and leave those people to take their chances unaided?