Sink or swim

Reports last week of rising sea levels reducing traditional food sources in Kakadu National Park and the size of islands in the Torres Strait serves as a reminder that every now and then an issue comes along that is beyond the reach of politics.

An issue that can’t adequately be dealt with by our political system because dealing with it requires consensus between and co-operation by our elected representatives; because it can only be tackled with bipartisan long term policy and monetary planning; and because it may require confrontation with large and sometimes powerful parts of the electorate and, perhaps, the loss of political “careers”.

Rising sea levels and mapping our planned retreat is just such an issue. Yes indeed, it will put our politicians to the test.

Late last year the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre revealed in its Copenhagen Diagnosis Report that:

.... By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as - 2 meters sea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilised, and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries ...

Uh oh. That doesn’t even factor in sea-level rises associated with king tides and storm surges! And since Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s recent abandonment of the carbon trading proposal, it looks like we’ll have “unmitigated emissions” for quite a few years yet.

Now our governments can’t plead ignorance about this. Drawing on some of the findings of the Climate Change Risks to Australia’s Coasts report, the Minister for Climate Change recently said:

… Up to 247,000 residential buildings are at risk of flooding from a 1.1 metre sea level rise. Their replacement value is up to $63 billion. Many industries that support Australia’s economy rely on use of the coastal zone. Those industries are vulnerable even to small rises in the sea level and changes to the extreme events. Our coastal infrastructure will be affected - from low-lying airports in Brisbane or Sydney to the vital infrastructure that supports our electricity and wastewater services ... Not only are our assets and environments at risk, many of our sandy beaches could erode away or recede up to hundreds of metres over the coming century …

It’s worth noting that $63 billion was the 2008 replacement value so if you can believe what’s allegedly going on with house prices it would be at least $80 billion by now. On top of that there are the risks posed to community services and industries located within 200 metres of the shoreline, and the potential fallout for tourism (PDF 3.05MB).

Can you even try to imagine (PDF 527KB), let alone calculate, the cost of that kind of damage?

Well insurance companies have, and continue to do so. It’s their business to balance the rates of losses against premium revenues.

Munich Re has reported:

Torsten Jeworrek, Munich Re Board member responsible for global reinsurance business, drew attention to the marked increase in major weather-related natural catastrophes worldwide since 1950, the number now having more or less tripled. Economic losses from weather-related natural catastrophes in the period since 1980 totalled approximately US$ 1,600bn (in original values).

Overseas countries have already experienced a costs shift from private insurance companies to governments (aka us, the taxpayers) and also back to individuals because insurance companies need to cherry-pick their clients to avoid climate change risks.

Closer to home Reportage Enviro, a branch of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism magazine, reported that sea level rise could cost Australians $150 billion in uninsured real estate. (It also makes an interesting reference to insurance in terms of lending requirements.)

It’s easy to see that that estimate is realistic: the storms that hit on the 2007 Queen’s Birthday weekend alone cost the industry $1.48 billion. Why wouldn’t private insurers be pulling out of bad risks as their exposure progressively increases?

You’d think a sensible government would see the need - in everybody’s interests - to work closely with insurance companies to allocate and manage risks, and to take logical steps like the Federal Government taking over coastal climate change planning. Have we seen any action like that yet?

The Inquiry into climate change and environmental impacts on coastal communities called for the Productivity Commission to investigate gaps in insurance coverage for owners of coastal property. It’s not clear from the Productivity Commission’s website whether or not the government has actually commissioned a report.

To give it what little credit it deserves, the government at least has allocated funding for several climate change adaptation projects and assessments. It also set up a Coasts and Climate Change Council, though its term is limited to the end of this year. On the back of unmitigated emissions it remains to be seen how successful preventative measures will be, if they actually are instituted.

All of this points to climate change and its consequences being one of these issues beyond the reach of politics. Australia’s political history on the issue in the three years since 2007 begins with promises, passes sequentially through inquiries, reports, “debate” (as a polite euphemism for the squealing of the self-interested), stand-offs on party lines, parliamentary obstruction, and international spruiking not matched by domestic assuredness; ultimately, it ends with abandonment in 2010.

So if you’re interested in watching our governments tackle serious economic, environmental and moral challenges, then I’d suggest you strap on your pasha bulker: the rising sea levels are likely to dampen your seat in the grandstand.