Pollution rework / Enviroment / Climate Change

I agree with some proposed points.

 Events can and should be more impactful, even more so with the congress of humanity now, it should be possible to impose an environmental policy, being able to restrict the emission of pollution and prohibit/revert some infrastructures, as already exists in "whaling".

 A green future? I think it doesn't make sense for nature reserves to offer adjacency bonuses for pollution, as it would only make sense to provide for adjacencies with other reserves, and this is very rare in the game. As for reforestation, in practice the forests only remove carbon from the atmosphere while they are growing, from the moment the trees reach the adult stage and do not grow significantly anymore, they become a carbon deposit, whose main environmental effect is to maintain the climatic/rainy balance. So I agree with the current mechanic, where forests remove pollution for just a few turns.

 Pollution. While I prefer wind farms and nuclear power plants to remain infrastructure, despite the fact that hydroelectric dams that drastically alter large areas make sense to be a buildable, I am content with the current form and its effects. But I fully agree with the implementation of environmental disasters, even some happening randomly like earthquakes, but disasters like hurricanes, droughts and rising sea levels linked to the pollution index, causing the loss of districts.

Overall, I think it's important to point out that current pollution interfaces are unclear, so it's often difficult to identify where your kingdom's source of pollution is. Being the only way, looking territory by territory until finding all the pollutants, city by city.

Few words that came to mind by reading:

1. The pollution system is mixing pollution and climate change together, which is a bad way to handle those issues.
2. Events are globally not doing enough past the neolithic and ancient era, the numbers are too low.
3. I've absolutely no issue being at lower than 0 pollution. In fact, I have been really little time above 0 in my games.
4. Humankind is a game of growth, growth of everything. It is by essence not compatible with the idea of a climate friendly or pollution free world.
5. Electricity in itself doesn't pollute or modify the climate, it's the way it's made that can do it.
6. We do not even have gas.
7. I'd be in favour of having a system to produce electricity. It would require an overhaul so big it's a full expansion.
8. We need more impact on other players, regarding pollution.
9. Earthquakes, to my knowledge, are neither tied to pollution nor climate change.
10. Agreed on the difficulty to visualize emission on the map.

Thank you for your reply. About:

1- I'd rather have it split, than only get a name change.

4- To get a complete industry as climate friendly is a green washing concept. If we think of the game as a reflection of our world and take the middle of the era VI as starting point to really reduce emissions, the only working path is degrowth.

5- I advocated for the implementation of an electricity system, so agreed on that if you make producting electricity having different consequences with different means of production (and consider intermittency, etc.).
6- Agreed, although in with an electricity production system, it'd be hard to do without it.

Good luck with your idea, wishing you the best

Atens7 wrote:

I agree with some proposed points.

 Events can and should be more impactful, even more so with the congress of humanity now, it should be possible to impose an environmental policy, being able to restrict the emission of pollution and prohibit/revert some infrastructures, as already exists in "whaling".

 A green future? I think it doesn't make sense for nature reserves to offer adjacency bonuses for pollution, as it would only make sense to provide for adjacencies with other reserves, and this is very rare in the game. As for reforestation, in practice the forests only remove carbon from the atmosphere while they are growing, from the moment the trees reach the adult stage and do not grow significantly anymore, they become a carbon deposit, whose main environmental effect is to maintain the climatic/rainy balance. So I agree with the current mechanic, where forests remove pollution for just a few turns.

 Pollution. While I prefer wind farms and nuclear power plants to remain infrastructure, despite the fact that hydroelectric dams that drastically alter large areas make sense to be a buildable, I am content with the current form and its effects. But I fully agree with the implementation of environmental disasters, even some happening randomly like earthquakes, but disasters like hurricanes, droughts and rising sea levels linked to the pollution index, causing the loss of districts.

Overall, I think it's important to point out that current pollution interfaces are unclear, so it's often difficult to identify where your kingdom's source of pollution is. Being the only way, looking territory by territory until finding all the pollutants, city by city.

To Atens7:
- I meant adjacencies of reserves with each other. because multi tile reseverse does make way more sense than 10 x 1 Tile ^^
- Forest do much more than just store CO2 , they also lower air pollution ^^ for example and ... I dont meant what they should do ingame but the 2 round thing is strange idk.

- about the windfarms - I just think about building offshore wind farms would be sooo cool !

- totally agree. thats why I would like to have an own interface like CIV6 but better ^^

Thank you for your comment & ideas

Cure_off wrote:

Thank you for your reply. About:

1- I'd rather have it split, than only get a name change.

4- To get a complete industry as climate friendly is a green washing concept. If we think of the game as a reflection of our world and take the middle of the era VI as starting point to really reduce emissions, the only working path is degrowth.

5- I advocated for the implementation of an electricity system, so agreed on that if you make producting electricity having different consequences with different means of production (and consider intermittency, etc.).
6- Agreed, although in with an electricity production system, it'd be hard to do without it.

Good luck with your idea, wishing you the best

1. If I understand your correct: I think you have to kind of sum it up because distinguish between pollution and CO2 / Climate Change would be too much Detail. And I hope there will be a more detailed menu for this which covers more information. (take a look on my reply to Atens7)

4. Yes and No . Humankind also dives a bit into the future, so there could be technologies like decarbonization technologies + the fossil way also needs some advantages like higher production at beginning. And yes its slower and sustainable growth but in this way the international congress becomes interesting again for negotiating the different interests. It needs a lot of balancing that both ways are attractive :D

5. I updated my idea above to cover just the core idea & my biggest wishes. I don't have a plan for everything and also like to get others good ideas & inspirations. I think about electricity our thoughts are pretty similar.

6. As you can read above I linked your idea about the gas ;) I think gas would be an essential part of the fossil industrial way.

Thanks same for your idea.

1- Those are not the same things with the same effects.

4- Those technologies are only dreams. Sustainable growth is green washing. There can't be infinite growth in a finite world.

5- I feel discussion would be easier to conduct in the regular forum.

6 - Thank you!

Cure_off wrote:

1- Those are not the same things with the same effects.

4- Those technologies are only dreams. Sustainable growth is green washing. There can't be infinite growth in a finite world.

5- I feel discussion would be easier to conduct in the regular forum.

6 - Thank you!

1. I know but if you really wanna have pollution & climate change both in the game this is a lot of extra work. [ I personally dont care ^^ the more detail the better ]

4. You should inform better about green growth. Of course it comes with lower income (that's the price for it). Well in game the growth is limited by the tiles on the map but in space it could continue. [green washing is more about a concrete organization and their product which they claim to be ecofriendly though it isn't. And sustainable or green growth doesn't contradict the understanding that a planet is limited] And I think in a game where fossil fuel fuels like oil are unlimited you can also have some fun with some sci-fi technologies ^^

5. I'm pretty new at games2gether so if you want continue that in the forum do it and link this :)

6. your welcome

1. It would require some work, indeed.

4. I'll make it a bit short:

1. Growth is basically an augmentation of the produced value in a set system over a defined period,
2. It factors goods and services,
3. Both require material involvement, be it energy (which actually requires matter and energy too) or matter,
4. There's no case in which creating growth leads to using a negative amount of energy (so producing it for free) or matter (creating materials),
5. Thus, growth requires more and more energy and matter,
6. While the world possesses a set amount of energy (fossil fuels creation cycle are far longer than our societies life expectancy) and matter (finite world),
7. At some point, without even mentionning pollution or climate change (and no one is talking about the mass extinction of species), growth will stop and decline will follow.
8. This is not beliefs but physical facts.

As for your claims:

1. Greenwashing is about giving the idea that something is climate virtuous / eco-friendly
2. Sustainable growth, aka growth that would not impair the quality of life on the planet does not exist
   1. Because of the requirement for energy and matter as stated above
   2. I write it again: decorrelation between growth and physical impacts doesn't work fundamentally, physically.
3. Pushing the idea that sustainable growth is indeed possible, is giving green clothes to growth, that's per definition greenwashing.
   1. Note that I'm not stating anything against you; you hold beliefs that lead to this consequences but you seem not to wish for these consequence as you seem to miss the link between your beliefs and this effect, that's all.
   2. It's not different from firm believers that a full solar or nuclear world is possible, they believe it, it's however impossible.

As for the gameplay part:

1. I already asked for a different way to handle resources. It won't happen.
2. I'd rather stay in the realm of the possibilities rather than wishfulthinking. I see no reason to strive for consistency with history to finally stray away from it at the pinnacle of the game.
   
   

5. I wasn't asking to open a thread anywhere. Should I have felt the need, I'd have done it without asking for permission. I merely point out that this conversation will remain quite private here, mostly among us both and that's all, and thus your idea won't take the precise shape that is required to have it gather 1000K points.

I wish you the best,

Cure_off wrote:

1. It would require some work, indeed.

4. I'll make it a bit short:

1. Growth is basically an augmentation of the produced value in a set system over a defined period,
2. It factors goods and services,
3. Both require material involvement, be it energy (which actually requires matter and energy too) or matter,
4. There's no case in which creating growth leads to using a negative amount of energy (so producing it for free) or matter (creating materials),
5. Thus, growth requires more and more energy and matter,
6. While the world possesses a set amount of energy (fossil fuels creation cycle are far longer than our societies life expectancy) and matter (finite world),
7. At some point, without even mentionning pollution or climate change (and no one is talking about the mass extinction of species), growth will stop and decline will follow.
8. This is not beliefs but physical facts.

As for your claims:

1. Greenwashing is about giving the idea that something is climate virtuous / eco-friendly
2. Sustainable growth, aka growth that would not impair the quality of life on the planet does not exist
   1. Because of the requirement for energy and matter as stated above
   2. I write it again: decorrelation between growth and physical impacts doesn't work fundamentally, physically.
3. Pushing the idea that sustainable growth is indeed possible, is giving green clothes to growth, that's per definition greenwashing.
   1. Note that I'm not stating anything against you; you hold beliefs that lead to this consequences but you seem not to wish for these consequence as you seem to miss the link between your beliefs and this effect, that's all.
   2. It's not different from firm believers that a full solar or nuclear world is possible, they believe it, it's however impossible.

As for the gameplay part:

1. I already asked for a different way to handle resources. It won't happen.
2. I'd rather stay in the realm of the possibilities rather than wishfulthinking. I see no reason to strive for consistency with history to finally stray away from it at the pinnacle of the game.
   
   

5. I wasn't asking to open a thread anywhere. Should I have felt the need, I'd have done it without asking for permission. I merely point out that this conversation will remain quite private here, mostly among us both and that's all, and thus your idea won't take the precise shape that is required to have it gather 1000K points.

I wish you the best,

4. I'll try to make it shorter ^^

- green growth isn't about "negative amount of energy" it is about minimize the impact on enviroment and people.

- growth or production can look really differnt when it comes to efficiency. There are many examples if you compare history and nowadays. (new technologies, catalysts, new materials & new procedures)

- Our modern socitey or better our dependency of fossil fuels is the big problem we need to solve. 

- About your energy and matter thing - the earth is in fact a just part of a universe surrounding us. The energy comes from outside. it's way more we could and do use right now (take a look on what sun emitts per second) but yes the matter on this planet is limited. So yes earth is limited (much more from matter than energy). Though matter is limited on earth it never is exhausted because everything on earth is working in circular systems. So the problem isn't growth in general but we need to understand that this planet has is limited and the way we grow is too fast for the cycles we depend on like ecosystems or the carbon cycle. Understanding this and reshape our industry & economy is a key part of the concept of green growth.

- I think that we just share a different opinion in general (feeling a bit pessimistic vibes ^^). You beliving in a predetermined decay of humanity and I think that the "frontier spirit" is part of our nature (if not we wouldnt be here today). From your point of view all the efforts for climate doesnt make any sense because you are truly convinced about the coming doom but I am an enviromentalist and a biotechnologist as so I work everyday on this vision. I think it will depend on the humanity and their insight if it will be thrive or decay so we'll see. I think at this point we can end this and going both our ways.

5.I actually dont care if it makes it in the game. My intention was just to take a part in the development and improve the game by sharing an idea. I don't want precise it too much because it's not just my game I do have my priorities which I wrote down but maybe other people can finish the work better. (I seen one idea you pushed because they changed it to your wishes but you should really learn the benifits of pluralism ^^). And if the "idea" tab is not working as intended then it's actually Amplitudes problem or fault ^^ 

Have a good one :D

I'll make it shorter:
Green growth is growth in a world that already can't bear it anymore, therefore it can't be sustainable and the green part is advertising.

[The only way to get sustainable growth when the capacities of the earth are exceeded is to have a negative impact (so negative consumption of energy and/or matter)]

If the cup is full, adding a bit or a lot of water will make it drip outside, whatever the quantity. On efficiency, look at Jevons.

Overcoming our dependency on fossil fuels means degrowth.

I do live in a world where science has a meaning. You can read the reports (or synthesis, they're way shorter and easier to understand) from the IPCC. 

Being optimistic can push people to underestimate the gravity of a situation. If so many scientists, experts on the matter, are desesperate, not to write hopeless, could there be good reasons for that?
You forgot an option: I could very well believe efforts would be welcome but people will keep dreaming of the “tech that will change the world”, etc. and thus not believe we'd be able to stabilize the situation (could it still?)

Good luck!

Atens7 wrote:

it's important to point out that current pollution interfaces are unclear, so it's often difficult to identify where your kingdom's source of pollution is. the only way currenly is by looking territory by territory until finding all the pollutants, city by city.

so a great idea would be a new pop up screen for pollution that lists for each city -- pollution amount and pollution mitigation