The Kapiti Coast District Council (KCDC) is embroiled in controversy over its ambitious Climate Adaptation Plan, facing strong opposition from residents and climate change skeptics alike. The plan, crafted by the Coastal Advisory Panel (CAP) under the leadership of former Prime Minister Jim Bolger, has ignited fierce debate due to its reliance on what critics deem “extreme and implausible” climate modeling.
As Cited in the Telegraph, At the heart of the dispute lies the Jacobs Report, a key document underpinning the plan, which utilizes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) SSP/RCP5-8.5 model. This model, projecting significantly elevated sea levels, has been widely criticized and even largely dismissed by the IPCC itself as an improbable scenario. The reliance on this model has resulted in the designation of five extensive Coastal Adaptation Areas (CAAs), raising alarm bells among residents who believe the perceived risks are grossly exaggerated.
Critics point to numerous flaws in the modelling used by CAP. The exclusion of protective measures like sea walls and natural barriers, coupled with the assumption of a high-energy rocky shoreline rather than the actual sandy coastline characteristic of Kapiti, casts doubt on the accuracy and relevance of the projections. Furthermore, the unique geological features of Kapiti’s coastline, such as its accreting shoreline and rising landmass, have been overlooked, raising further questions about the validity of the plan.
Adding to the discontent, the council’s community engagement efforts have been lambasted as inadequate and lacking transparency. Early workshops saw dismal attendance, and a large turnout at the Raumati Community Workshop, where residents voiced strong concerns about the scientific basis of the plan, prompted KCDC to impose restrictions on future participation, limiting attendance and moving subsequent engagements online. This move has been widely condemned as an attempt to stifle public dissent and scrutiny.
Allegations of conflict of interest within CAP have further fueled the controversy, with accusations of staff members manipulating workshop outcomes by giving undue weight to minority views that align with the panel’s predetermined conclusions. The questions posed in the workshops have also come under fire for allegedly steering participants towards pre-ordained outcomes rather than genuinely addressing community concerns.
The financial burden of the CAA process is another major point of contention. To date, it has cost ratepayers a staggering $4 million, with the potential for billions more if the proposed managed retreat—a plan to relocate homes based on potential risks rather than actual events—is implemented. Documents from the Ministry for the Environment suggest that residents could face eviction with minimal or no compensation, raising serious concerns about property rights and financial security.
Sean Rush Comments in his recent post on Linkedin: “A good summary here of the issues facing coastal residents all around NZ. The problem is the use of outdated, implausible climate models that deliver scary predictions, but are out of touch with reality – and acknowledged as such by the IPCC. To rely on them will impose adaptation costs, constraints on housing development, insurance retreat, and the devaluation of coastal properties – all needlessly.
These high-end models have been embedded in planning documents by the Ministry for the Environment | Manatū mō te Taiao.
But the legislation is very clear: Councils should assess the “likely future effects of climate change.” A model that is (to use the IPCC’s words) “considerably less likely” to occur will deliver “considerably less likely” future effects of climate change. These high-end models have now been determined by the IPCC climate modeling community (Bangkok meeting last year – see Meinshausen et al 2024) as implausible – you can’t burn that much coal!
Subject to political intervention, we are heading towards judicial review”.
The potential impact of the CAAs on property values, insurance premiums, and mortgage availability is a source of widespread anxiety. If the CAAs are adopted and applied to property titles or Land Information Memoranda (LIM) reports, residents fear their homes could be devalued, making it difficult to sell or refinance, and potentially leading to increased insurance costs or even the withdrawal of coverage.
Resident advocacy groups, such as Kapiti C.A.L.M (Calm Alarmist Law Madness), have emerged as vocal opponents of the plan, arguing that it is undemocratic and founded on flawed science. They demand a suspension of the CAP process, the removal of the extreme modelling, and a shift towards more balanced and realistic climate data. They also advocate for genuine, transparent community engagement and local government initiatives that prioritize practical mitigation measures like sea walls and other protective barriers.
Kapiti C.A.L.M spokeswoman Tanya Lees expressed the community’s frustration in a recent interview with Paul Brennan of Reality Check Radio, stating that locals are “angry and up in arms” over the situation. The council’s decision to place “Hazard Notices” on all LIM reports, regardless of location, has already impacted property values and raised concerns about insurance availability and mortgage approvals.
The community’s trust in the process remains deeply shaken, with many residents feeling their concerns have been ignored. The ongoing debate over the Climate Adaptation Plan underscores the broader tensions between climate change adaptation efforts and the need for democratic, evidence-based decision-making that genuinely reflects the needs and concerns of the community.
With the CAP recommendations due to be presented to the council on June 20, Kapiti C.A.L.M is urging residents to sign their petition and submit their views before the deadline. They also highlight a concurrent central government process (Submission on the Inquiry into Climate Adaptation), with submissions closing on June 16. Critics are concerned that the short deadlines imposed by bureaucrats are hindering meaningful public participation.
Kapiti C.A.L.M believes that these policies could have far-reaching implications for New Zealand, eroding property rights and undermining democracy. They warn that if implemented, the plan could grant government agencies excessive power, leading to potential outcomes such as the removal of private property rights, the establishment of a separate crown entity with unchecked authority, a lack of recourse for homeowners, and a shift in policy towards a subjective “well-being” approach that disregards the established focus on “risk to life and property” in assessing risk.
The group also raises concerns about the potential for “pre-emptive adaptation” based on implausible climate models and the possibility of discriminatory practices that disproportionately affect non-Maori residents.
Kapiti C.A.L.M urges all concerned citizens to make their voices heard by submitting their views and signing the petition before the looming deadlines. Templates for submissions are available on the Kapiti C.A.L.M website.
CONTRIBUTE
Have stories, yarns, mad scoops, or community news to share. We often pay for awesome content and life shattering stories. What have you witnessed?