I, and many I speak with in the community, feel that it is time for Noosa Council to revise its climate change strategy to better align with actual observed data, prioritize cost-effective solutions, and meaningfully re-engage the community in long-term planning. The community needs to feel that Council policies are both scientifically rigorous and economically sustainable which is essential to safeguarding Noosa’s environment and in particular our coastline, while fostering sustainable growth. Unfortunately, many in the community feel that the current approach falls short of this balance.
Council’s reliance on RCP 8.5 climate change modelling and its declaration of a Climate Change State of Emergency have led to unnecessary costs and inefficiencies. A more balanced, adaptive approach grounded in observed data and community priorities, would better serve ratepayers and the environment. By treating climate change as a “journey, not an event”, Council can and should develop flexible, cost-effective strategies that address both current and future risks without imposing undue burdens on the community.
For example, Noosa’s coastline has demonstrated remarkable resilience, with beaches like Noosa Main Beach benefiting from natural sediment supply and managed interventions. Prioritizing low-cost, high-impact measures such as dune restoration and managed retreat only where needed, over planned expensive infrastructure (e.g. Noosaville Foreshore) based on low-probability outcomes would be a more prudent approach. Globally, regions like the Netherlands have successfully implemented adaptive management strategies that balance protection with natural processes, offering valuable lessons for Noosa.
This shift in strategy would not only protect our environment but also ensure that the financial and social costs of climate adaptation are shared equitably and sustainably.
In June 2019, Noosa Council declared a Climate Emergency, citing an imminent and catastrophic threat to environmental sustainability—a cornerstone of Noosa’s identity as an eco-tourism destination. Council argued that urgent measures were necessary to protect the Noosa Biosphere Reserve and ensure the region’s resilience for future generations. This decision was rooted in its strategic objective of prioritizing the natural environment, with community well-being framed as a secondary outcome.
Council’s rationale relied heavily on the 2018 IPCC report, which warned of threats to biodiversity, the tourism economy, and community well-being if climate change predictions materialized. Additionally, Council emphasized the potential risks to coastal infrastructure, properties, and ecosystems from sea level rise, storm surge and inundation projections, describing these risks as absolute, certain, and potentially disastrous. This led to the adoption of a precautionary principal approach, with Council basing its policies on the high-emissions, worst-case scenario RCP 8.5 as part of its Climate Change State of Emergency declaration.
While the intent to mitigate future risks is commendable, Council’s reliance on extreme modelling and emergency framing is resulting in disproportionate costs for ratepayers and inefficient resource allocation. I contend that Noosa Council should shift its policy position from a certainty of an “absolute emergency” mindset to one that acknowledges possible outcomes, adopting a more balanced, adaptive strategy. Climate change should be treated as a “journey, not an event”, aligning with observed data on coastal processes such as sea level rise, accretion, and erosion, and progressively prioritizing cost-effective, community-focused solutions.
1. RCP 8.5 and High-Risk Modelling. RCP 8.5 represents a worst-case scenario, assuming high greenhouse gas emissions and no significant climate policy intervention. While useful for exploring extreme outcomes, it is increasingly criticized as an unlikely baseline for planning, given global efforts to reduce emissions and that it is recognised by all levels of government and its agencies that our geographic location will experience fewer impacts of climate change versus most other areas. Key limitations include:
Overly Pessimistic: RCP 8.5 is recognised as not the most probable scenario, yet it dominates Noosa Council’s planning, leading to inflated risk assessments.
Misallocation of Resources: Preparing for extreme scenarios justifies costly infrastructure projects, such as seawalls and beach nourishment, which are unnecessary in the short term and potentially unnecessary in the medium term.
Lack of Nuance: RCP 8.5 fails to account for local variability, such as the net accretion observed across most of Noosa’s coastline. Satellite data over four decades shows approximately 29 metres of accretion across the shire, with some 26 metres of beach erosion limited to localized areas like Burgess Creek and the Noosa River mouth to First Cutting—issues caused by human interference and yet to be resolved.
2. Current Data on Coastal Processes
Shoreline Accretion: Data from DEA Coastlines, the Sunshine Coast Council’s Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy (CHAS), and State of the Environment Reports demonstrate that much of Noosa’s coastline continues to experience net accretion due to natural processes like longshore drift and sediment supply from the river and creeks. Historical trends show that beaches recover quickly from erosion events, such as storms, through natural processes.
Erosion Hotspots: While localized erosion exists, it is often linked to specific conditions, such as human interference. While it is true that erosion is not uniform, most areas do remain stable and/or are accreting.
Sea Level Rise: Current data shows minimal sea level rise impacts in the region, contradicting and seriously putting into question the Council’s 2040 projection of a +200mm rise which in turn also puts into question 2070 and 2100 projections. While long-term projections suggest gradual changes, these must be balanced against actual observed trends, which indicate resilience in most areas. What the actual data is clearly showing is that current modelling is completely unrealistic and a move to adaptive management is needed.
3. Negative Impacts on Ratepayers
Financial Burden: High-risk modelling justifies extreme measures such as property resumptions, caveats, and costly infrastructure projects, all of which are unnecessary in the short term and likely unnecessary in the medium term. These costs are passed on to ratepayers through increased rates, taxes, and fees, while also negatively impacting property values.
Household insurance is almost unavailable or completely unaffordable to many as a direct result of Councils disaster mapping. Increasingly property owners have no insurance.
Opportunity Cost: Resources allocated to extreme scenarios could be better spent on immediate community needs, such as roads, waste management, and reducing rates during a cost-of-living crisis. Overinvestment in speculative risks diverts funds from pressing local priorities.
Economic Disruption: Overly restrictive planning policies, based on extreme scenarios, stifle development and tourism, which are vital to our local economy. Creative, adaptive building regulations in low-risk areas should be considered to balance preservation with growth – all within a context of preserving Noosa’s look and feel.
4. Proposed Alternative: Adaptive Management
Council must start treating climate change as a long-term process requiring flexible, incremental responses rather than emergency measures. Key principles include:
Data-Driven Decisions: Base planning on real, actual observed trends (e.g., accretion, erosion) rather than speculative worst-case scenarios or dismissing them out of hand as not appropriate for Noosa’s unique needs.
Localized Solutions: Address specific risks in erosion-prone areas while allowing natural processes to continue in stable or accreting areas.
Community Involvement: Engage ratepayers in decision-making to ensure policies reflect true, majority local priorities and values.
Regular Review: Update strategies as new data and technologies become available, avoiding redundant studies and leveraging existing data sources.
