■ As seas rise and weather extremes intensify, the Government’s climate rhetoric still dances around the hard truth; that genuine mitigation, from the reduction of emissions at their source, demands changing the very systems that created the crisis. Yet, those with the most power to act seem least willing to disrupt the status quo that sustains them, writes Dr Mawera Karetai.

That unwillingness defines our national approach to climate policy. Instead of leading with decisive mitigation, governments invest in adaptation.

We keep lifting roads, building seawalls, and retrofitting communities, measures that make living with climate damage more tolerable but do little to prevent further harm.

The irony is both tragic and predictable; the more we delay mitigation, the more we must adapt.

The longer adaptation is deferred, the closer we move toward the painful choice of coastal retreat.

Anthropologist, Prof Jonathan Gosling wrote, “It’s rare for an elite to undermine its own privilege, and usually the virtues that are admired in leaders do not include ‘willing to give up on our way of life’.”

The words ring sharply true in Aotearoa.

“Our national leaders celebrate progress while sidestepping the sacrifices that genuine climate mitigation requires; fewer cars, less fossil fuel dependency, different land-use priorities.

The failure is not just one of policy but of imagination, and effective non-partisan leadership.

Here in the Eastern Bay, climate change cannot be kept abstract.

Communities are already budgeting for sea-level rise and future “managed retreat”, but without deeper emission cuts, that retreat will not be managed, it will be forced.

High river levels now push our local rivers beyond their limits each year, and insurance companies are beginning to take notice.

Adaptation, like better drainage, higher riverbanks, and coastal reinforcement, buys time. But it does not solve the problem, it merely postpones it.

The more seriously we treat mitigation today, the less these measures will cost us tomorrow. Every local investment in solar power, regenerative farming, or electric transport pushes retreat further into the future.

Yet, at both national and regional levels, decision-makers tend to choose adaptation first, before mitigation.

We talk of “resilience” while approving new fossil fuel infrastructure. We praise “adaptation funding” while slashing public investment in emissions reduction.

In doing so, we build short-term comfort at the cost of long-term stability. It is the more comfortable option, and it requires planning, not transformation. It lets Government showcase “action” without unsettling entrenched industries.

For ports, industrial zones, and rural land users, the incentive to preserve operations outweighs the appetite for systemic change.

The pattern mirrors that aforementioned quote; privilege defending itself under the banner of prudence.

In prioritising protective infrastructure over proactive transformation, we are entrenching vulnerability rather than reducing it.

Leadership that inspires mitigation begins with honesty. It would mean acknowledging that adaptation cannot compensate for ongoing emissions, and that coastal retreat, the last resort, is a direct consequence of political inaction.

For regions like the Bay of Plenty, it also means empowering local communities, in their absolute entirety, to work collectively to mitigate – not merely to prepare to evacuate.

We cannot adapt our way out of a crisis still being fuelled but the behaviour that got us here.

Mitigation minimises the need for adaptation; strong adaptation minimises the trauma of retreat.

The Bay’s future depends on that chain of courage, from the halls of Parliament to the banks of our rivers, where every choice either protects our way of life or admits its unsustainability.