Despite being referenced a number of times throughout the 2016 report, this is the very first time that climate change has received its own section in this long-term projection. In the most value-neutral way possible, Treasury tells us in this report, "Adaptation efforts may involve upfront costs, but [they] also have the potential to reduce the total costs from climate change over the long term." We are here, of course, talking about—in very emotionless language—the financial implications of living in an island nation impacted by rising sea levels; coastal erosion; less predictable seasons; more once-upon-a-time, once-in-100-year weather events; potential food insecurity; mass human migration; and a potentially far harsher quality of life. These are the things that the National Party and the ACT Party trade off when they talk about reducing our nation's role in doing anything about the crisis before us. Even as the Treasury says in this report, "There are also costs associated with inaction. Not proceeding with a given action to reduce emissions implies that other actions—with their own costs or benefits, financial, social and broader economic—will be needed if New Zealand is to achieve its emission reduction[s] targets." You can't negotiate with chemistry or physics. To prevent a radically warmed and drastically-changed world, we must act now. The world is changing—the question is whether we want to make a choice in how we respond to how that is occurring, which brings me to the very recent example of having made policy decisions that did make explicit trade-offs, much like He Tirohanga Mokopuna informs us that we must do, and we must confront.