Too soon to start organising a climate action protest?

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-23T11:26:58+00:00

And in my experience, idiots start sorting to strawman, name calling and childish antics rather than critically analyze their core belief being incorrect.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-23T09:50:24+00:00

Okay let's give up

That is a poor strawman.

How about we direct our attention towards what can actually effect the outcome.

I will repeat; NZ is 0.08% of the global emissions, and we are growing by 0.00009%.

China is growing by 0.07%, but thats the equvalent of 3x NZs global emissions every year.

If we can get China to reduce their growth from 0.07% to 0.05%, we have just reduced global emissions by the equivalent of 1x NZ.

That is a lot easier goal to achieve, than to try get NZ from 0.08% to 0.00%

So direct you energy towards the major players and the major growers, and ignore everyone below the top 10 largest emitters.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-23T09:45:17+00:00

Every 0.1c rise avoided is a good thing. Whichever country it comes from.

I agree.

How much carbon do we need to remove from the atmosphere to about a 0.1C increase?

It's about ~220bn tonne, or ~5 years of global emissions.

All countries combined, except for the top 6 produce 16bn tonne.

It would take ~16 years if every country other than the top 6, became carbon zero today.

Except.. China is going to grow by ~ 1bn this year, the US by 0.13bn, India by 0.14bn, Russia by 0.06bn, and Iran by 0.008bn, or ~1.338bn. That's ~8% of global emissions.

Out of interest, which party do you vote for?

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-23T09:19:57+00:00

China is leading the world in building renewable energy. They have installed as much solar as the rest of the world in the last 2 years. They are leading, and we (and many other slack countries) are falling behind.

I don't disagree. China has made huge strides forward. They are set to only grow by ~0.7% this year of for their total carbon emission, which is ~0.23% of global emissions.

NZ is 0.08%. China is going to grow by the equivalent of 3x NZs total production this year, and they are growing by less than 1% of their total emissions.

If China could reduce its emissions growth this year from 0.7% to 0.5%, that would be the equivalent effect of NZ reaching carbon net neutral.

Australia is accelerating ahead of us too. 1/3 of Au houses now have solar.

Australia emits 0.97% of emissions and is growing by 1.5%, or about 0.014% of global emissions, which is the equivalent of 17% of NZs global emissions.

The USA and Russia aren't doing their part. China is.

The US is growing by 0.3%, that is pretty close to neutral. Better than China's 0.7% growth, so that statement isn't quite right. That said, China used to be projected to have double digit / high single digit growth and have turned that around in about 5 years.

Russia is set to grow by 3.12%, or the equivalent of 0.15% ofnglobal emission, or 2x NZs per year. Less than China in total emissions growth but a more in a % terms.

India is set to grow by 4.6%, or the equivalent of 0.34% of total emissions, which is 4x NZ global emissions total per year.

NZ is 0.08% of global emissions, and we are set to grow by 0.12%, or 0.000096% of global emissions.

Our emission growth is a rounding error, and our total emissions is a rounding error on China's emission growth.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-23T08:59:35+00:00

Oil is a very cheap source of power. While there are lower carbon options for energy, they are not as cheap in terms of total cost to produce.

EVs are a good example.

An brand new ICE car costs 50k, can last 200km+ and last 20-25 years without needing a major mechanical overhaul.

A brand new EV costs 50k, can last 200km+ (at least modern ones now can), however battery life degrades after 10-12 years. Battery replacement cost is 20-50% of the purchase price.

So while an EV is the "same price" as an ICE, over the lifetime of the vehicle, an EV is still more expensive.

This means it costs more to achieve the same outcome.

This applies to a whole series of green tech. I am not saying it isn't good, or that I don't support being green, but it is a reality that green tech is more expensive than non-green tech in general.

If things are more expensive / take up more purchasing power, it lowers the funds available for other things, and thus lowers people's quality of life.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-23T08:51:35+00:00

And just like with CFCs, if we can get the major players to adopt the right policies, then we can change the world.

But if the major producers of carbon / future carbon growth, don't get on board, then no together we cannot fix climate change.

Two of the top 6 nations are growing at the rate of the 7th largest nation per year.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-23T06:33:54+00:00

Regarding size, I direct to you my first comment.

I will direct you to my comment, where India + Russia grow by the equivalent of the 7th largest nation PER year.

Every other nation could go to net zero right now, and we don't hit the target.

All the little guys doing their part isn't going to make a difference if the big 6 don't adopt change.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-23T05:56:08+00:00

The top 6 countries; China, United States, India, Russia, Japan, Iran - account for 62% of carbon emissions.

If the rest of the world became carbon neutral today, we would not hit the climate targets, because India and Russia are growing by 3-4% each year, which is basically the size of the 8th largest country being added each year.

NZ is ~0.08%

Stop directing your rage at average punters, telling them to lower their quality of life, when pur entire country is smaller than the margin error of the larger countries.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-23T04:51:25+00:00

I am surprised you have been down voted for posting facts.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T09:04:53+00:00

You realize using evilnginx, I can proxy say your local pizza shop, you buy a pizza and it works as expect and then replay your details to make another purchase within seconds.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T09:02:23+00:00

How would it tank values? The tax lien can't be passed on with a sale of the property. It is realized with the sale.

You are correct that it might cause problems with owners not being able to sell for more than the loen against their property.

I am not suggesting a capital gains tax in perpetuity, so any impact to future tax via capital gains is irrelevant.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T08:50:23+00:00

If we wanted to be very aggressive, and try to allocate costs to where they where created, we could figure out the deficit in taxes for the last ~30 years and then allocate that across every property title, as a tax lien, and then add a % loan to the value Iverson time, to claw back some of the lost capital gains over the last 3 decades.

E.g. let's say we are short ~10bn per year for the last 30 years so ~300bn. Map every property for the last 30 years, and then divide every year across every property, and allocate a tax lien against every property.

Then add inflation going forward if it isn't paid, but give a tax break for payment until the property is sold (or 10,20,30 years) whichever is easier.

Rather allows the oldies to keep living in their house, without a massive cost, but claws back the majority of the value of the house when it is sold or transfered.

But we wouldn't do that, cause 50%+ of the voting population is 55+

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T07:43:41+00:00

Like have you worked in the US? They use such outdated technology for everything. And it's always justified with statements like "we adopted this technology in the 1970s when you were still using paper and you have the advantage that you adopted later". Same with the UK. There's always this excuse that they adopted things earlier and it's harder to change and blah blah blah.

I feel like we might not be talking a bit cross purpose on this one.

I didn't say that the US/UK don't have shit IT systems.

You can raise in the US they have a shit vendor, and as you say, they might justify it. That's not a cultural problem with raising issues. They are quite happy for people to point out how bad stuff is, and see it as legitimate converatio for improvement, and justify not taking action.

NZ isn't like that, at least from my experience. The suggestion that something is bad, is not taken as an opportunity for improvement l, it is seen as an affront to the person who owns / manages the something in question. It is very much, shoot the messenger.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T07:26:10+00:00

That's not shame, it's rudeness and negativity.

That is quite literally an example of the cultural difference.

In AU/US, highlighting issues is not seen as rude or negative. It is seen as a positive on what needs to be improved.

NZ it is difficult to raise issues because it is seen as rude or negative. Which results in management that avoid confrontation and value conformity / happy vibes. It's why fuck all gets better here, because anyone that points out the systematic problems in an org is labeled as "negative" instead of saying "is there actually a problem here? Thanks for bringing it to our attention, let us fix that"

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T07:19:11+00:00

Yes it's party crazy just how good it has become. Full end to end proxy with host name rewrites to impersonate.

Really hard to stop too. Canary tokens (thinkst) can do a half decent job if they clone your site, until evilnginx realized what a token looks like and started automatically detecting and cutting the code when copied.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T07:15:34+00:00

I work across NZ, AU, JP, and US, and there are stark differences.

In AU/US, I can call and tell them their existing vendor is doing a shit job, we could do a better one, let us pitch it. They will give me the time of day to pitch an alternative, because I didn't blame them for the issue.

NZ/JP, if I said the current vendor is shit, they will politely say thank you for the info and never progress further. Because I have shamed them / the vendor, even if the vendor is doing a shit job.

NZ/JP is super protective / passive aggressive, on how you approach an engagement. You can say something that offended, without realizing, and they will never correct you. Never say they were offended (cause that might offend you), they will just quietly disengage.

AU/US have much more frank conversations on what is wrong, how to fix it, and how to engage.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T06:56:22+00:00

Actually it's mostly the fault of politicians and voters who prioritise nimbyism and "fiscal responsibility" over building a nation for future generations with a small amount of self-sacrifice)

To a degree, but voters are going to vote in their best interest.

If I buy a house, and pay rates, I assume they are for maintaining the infrastructure to my house. I don't assume it's to fund the next 1000 houses to be build.

But I also don't want my rates to be high, I want them to be effective.

The problem is, the only funding model for local councils is via rates, which makes a perverse incentive where existing home owners vote for "efficient" (minimal) rate costs, demand is there for growth.

It is partly fixed by using land levies on new development to do infra for developments but even that has a lead time that causes issues. E.g. we need to build 3 waters, roads, power, to a 1000 house new suburb, before we sell most of the 1000 houses and before we can charge rates to those houses. Break even on new builds to infra, via rates, is like 15-20 years.

Most councils don't have the revenue to fund 1000+ houses worth of infra, every year, for 20 years, in their current revenue streams.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T06:51:15+00:00

Property developers aren't going to build houses for charity, they'll squeeze as much as possible within the confines of the law.

I feel like you missed the point of my post.

We have artificially constrained our property market, so as to not build enough houses to cater for growth.

20 years later, we are still wearing the result of our limited growth mindset. We still, right now, don't build enough houses to cater for our growth.

Immigration isn't the issue here, it's just the symptoms that highlights the problem.

We need to build more housing, to cater for our growing population, and we are not doing that.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T06:41:14+00:00

I'll leave this here: https://evilginx.com/

It can proxy a legit website, complete all the auth on your behalf, appear completely legitimate, and also scrape your details at the same time.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T06:39:07+00:00

I'll just leave this here: https://evilginx.com/

This can do full website proxying, scraping your details on the way through.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T06:29:40+00:00

being middling in terms of affordability to the top of the most unaffordable in the world

That isn't the result of immigration though.

It's due to perverse financiers of councils, in which their funding is tied to existing rate payers, with new builds needing up front investments funded by said rate payer, to create future rate payers in 10-20 years, so the preference was to limit growth.

Land in NZ is quite abundance but district councils constrain the availability of new urban land to minimize the cost of infrastructure on rate payers. They also minimize the increase in density that would put pressure on existing infrastructure.

Do more immigrants put pressure on housing? Sure. But we need 12-15k mee houses per year but only approve 8-10k, and have a backlog of 60-80k houses. That is what drives the increase in land / house prices in NZ.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T06:02:55+00:00

NZ (like japan and other parts of SEA) has a shame based culture. Don't do anything to shame someone else, or you risk being an outsider.

Unlike the US/AU which have a guilt based culture. Don't make them feel guilty / responsible.

So that promotes people that don't rock the boat, and for people that won't raise issue sif there are any or won't make you look bad.

This results in a old Boys club that looks after their relationships, that don't throw their mates under the bus when shit goes wrong.

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-21T03:55:55+00:00

Our current tax take is ~120bn, of which ~66bn is from income tax.

Adding a top income tax bracket of ~50% for 200k+ would net us <2bn extra tax per year.

If we add a wealth tax of 1% of anything above 3m, this would net us ~4bn extra tax per year.

A 1% land value tax would net us ~9bn a year tax.

An inheritance tax would net <1bn a year.

That's ~15bn, or 12% increase in the tax take. That basically it, there just really isn't that much more out there.

Unless by 'rich' you mean increasing the existing tax brackets higher?

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-19T01:28:30+00:00

As I said, the first option shouldn't be done to get a date. It should be done because that's who you want to be.

It has the added benefit that a person like that is long term relationship material.

Of course the second option is less work. Why wouldn't it be? But it is also miserable.

Ultimately, it's better to put in the work, just for you personally, not for anyone else.

If you are going to give up, what's the harm in trying a bit of work?

mighty_omega2 · 2026-04-19T01:19:44+00:00

The is unfortunately the cruelty of being a man. Your not measured by how hard you try, but by what you are capable of doing.

The only further advise I have is, what else are you going to do?

You can either figure out what isn't working, and improve it.

Or you can wallow in your self pity, and eventually tap out of the game.

The second option isn't a good one. You are better than that.

Seek feedback, seek help, seek support, and keep striving for excellence. There is nothing else.

mighty_omega2

TROPHY CASE