It is even more evident where on the same day as this article, there is this one in line with the NWO agenda to shift people out of areas. We saw it from Event201 it is all planned. They create the problem, the weather manipulation, then drive us out and round us up like the cattle we are to where they want us to be:

The country is experiencing another destructive extreme weather event, with flooding causing havoc across the country. It's costing insurance companies millions, which may just be passed onto consumers.

But experts have found a way to avoid flooding damage and hefty insurance bills in the process - but it may be too good to be true.

Speaking to The Project, Climate Sigma managing director Belinda Storey said rather than the Government stepping in to save those in high-risk areas during extreme weather events, we should be encouraging people to move out of those areas.

While moving tens of thousands of people out of their homes may sound impossible, it is a necessary step to get people out of mother nature's way.

In the last 10 years alone the country has seen 10 major floods, with the same areas repetitively hit.

IAG claims on storms in the last 12 months reached $147 million and Storey said insurers are continuing to provide cross-subsidisation, meaning people living in less hazardous areas are likely to be paying higher premiums to subsidise those living in high-risk locations.

She said if a location loses insurance because a private insurer has pulled out, it means the risk to their home is getting really high.

But she said if the Government steps in and provides public insurance or spends millions on flood walls, it means residents are encouraged to remain in place while their risk keeps increasing.

"What that means is no matter how well insured you are, you can end up facing a risk to life, but insurance isn't going to protect you from that risk to life," Storey said. "So if we step in and provide public insurance in hazardous locations, we'll have more and more people staying in harm's way."

IAG NZ CEO Amanda Whiting said the highest flood risk areas are spread right throughout New Zealand, but the most severe risks only affect about one percent of households.

Insurance company IAG is also calling for people to stop building in flood-prone areas or face being uninsurable.

"We need to think about how we adapt and how we take opportunities to move people out of that danger area," Whiting told The Project.

Storey said we need to provide support for people to move out of hazardous areas and have conversations so that residents understand there is a time limit on those locations because of climate change.

While it may be expensive to do, it will save money in the long run.

"We can either pay after a disaster or we can pay before a disaster, when people's lives have been at risk, and before we have built way more assets in harm's way."

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/should-people-living-in-flood-prone-areas-be-forced-to-move/ar-AA10NjhN?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3fa32f228cee432dbde5c6f1a5e716c0


------
Then we get the Elite Maori Globalists like Mike Smith playing games like this to push the Climate Control Narrative:

Catching climate change through the courts

Should there be a legal duty to not contribute to climate change? The Supreme Court has been tasked with answering the question.It's not every day that you see one person suing a group of massive corporates worth tens of billions of dollars. But that's exactly what's happened this week.

Mike Smith (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kahu) is an iwi leader and climate change activist. He's taking seven of New Zealand's biggest greenhouse gas emitters to court - among them, big hitters like Fonterra and Genesis Energy - on the grounds that these big corporates have breached a duty of care to New Zealanders by materially contributing to climate change.

He's arguing on some fine, fairly novel points of law. The courts have never before recognised any sort of duty not to contribute to climate change. If Smith wins, he'll have changed the way New Zealand fights climate change - but that's a pretty big if.

Smith's bid has made it all the way to the Supreme Court after the lower courts declined to hear Smith's case. They say the outcome Smith wants represents a serious shift in our national climate change policy, and that our democratically-elected parliament should be the ones to make that call, not the courts.

But Smith's legal team are urging the courts to be bold. "Perhaps the most important question, if courts aren't going to do this, what are they going to do?" says Victoria University law professor Geoff McLay. "What're you here for, if you're not here for the biggest crisis of our time? And the lawyers on the other side have really been struggling to answer that basic question.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/catching-climate-change-through-the-courts/ar-AA10Olkg?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3fa32f228cee432dbde5c6f1a5e716c0