Herald editorial on lahars

I thought Stephen Franks and myself were lonely voices amongst the self congratulations over the lahar, but delighted to see this editorial from the NZ Herald:

Environmentalists are inordinately fond of an idea they call the precautionary principle. Under this principle they argue for all sorts of costly measures against remote or dubious risks to the planet, insisting it is always better to be safe than sorry. It is not always better in fact. If the economic cost of precautions is out of proportion to the possible harm, people are better off living with the risk. But, oddly, our environmental conservators did not invoke the precautionary principle against Mt Ruapehu’s lahar.

Had the dam burst differently than his department predicted and caused serious damage or death, the Government could have paid a high political price. The blame would have lain with its excessive deference to Maori and environmental spirituality which held that it would be somehow wrong to interfere with nature on the mountain.

It is an interesting ideology that holds an element of avoidable danger to be part of the ideal. Perhaps the same principle could be applied to global warming; let’s not try to prevent a build-up in greenhouse gases, let the mean temperature rise and trust that with plenty of warning and a bit of engineering, humans can avoid harmful consequences.

That may indeed be the most sensible response to climate change but it is not the one the Government advocates. Its avowed goal of carbon neutrality will impose severe costs on carbon-belching industry.

I think the Herald nails the hypocrisy spot on. The Government spouts the precautionary principle when it suits it, but drops it in the face of offending the mountain spirits.