Flood recovery plan – update
While the conventional media are concentrating on the hip-pocket effect of the flood levy, the debate about how the flood recovery plan should be funded and whether long-term funding should be put in place, is gearing up. My view is that the funding should be proportional to the risks. There is increasing evidence that the costs we pay for climate extremes have a substantial anthropogenic component. To propose what the bottom line for such a fund should be would require research, as I outlined the other day, but the case for having such a fund is pretty strong. I wouldn’t pitch it at disaster, though, but would look at planned adaptation that aims to avoid disaster as much as possible.
Funding it by reducing subsidies to greenhouse gas emitting activities that subsidise future harm, would help.
Kim at Larvatus Prodeo has posted a multitude of online links to the debate here
GetUp have a campaign going for a natural disaster fund – to sign their petition, go here
Joe Romm of Climate Progress exercises his penchant for understatement in pointing out the robbing Peter to pay Paul strategy of the funding cuts in the flood package.
In the conventional media, Paddy Manning of The Age is one of the best writers around on climate change. Today’s first effort is on the slow progress of climate policy and the second is on dealing with climate change impacts now while investing in future reductions. He’s wrong about climate sceptics being put in the hot seat, though – they just tell more and more outlandish tales.
Meanwhile, spare a thought for people north of Kerang to Swan Hill. The waters of the Murray are causing floodwaters from the Loddon and Avoca to back up, inundating large areas. Yes, the floods are climate variability but variability on steroids.