Improving GDP hugely harms the environment, which would make sense if I could counter it. There doesn’t seem to be any way to keep the envronment decent with high GDP without spending insane amounts of money - I can’t even maintain the starting environment value in some games.
Is there any way to balance this? Perhaps manufacturing environmental tech (e.g. solar panels) could help GDP and envrionment together? Perhaps GDP just affects environment less?
I’ve seen some ideas like more environmentalists -> better environment, green economy policies, etc.
New Car Subsidies is the only policy which comes to mind which compliments both GDP and Environment. In terms of what else can be done (and to not just list it all out), try to reduce commuting without sacrificing the economy. One example would be how everyone is now working from home/telecommuting - productivity hasn’t declined but emissions certain did initially.
I agree though something like Solar panel manufacturing subsidies would be good - or nationalise the energy sector (multiple policies/costings for Nuclear, Coal, or Renewables). Though there is ‘Clean Energy Subsidies’ but it simply reduces CO2 / Oil Demand, and raises The Environment / Energy Industry.
This is my biggest issue with the game so far as well. I made a thread a couple of weeks ago where I outlined how it seems a bit strange that the GDP has the same negative impact on the environment regardless of whether your CO2 emissions are maxed out or are completely gone. It doesn’t really make sense to me that when almost every green policy is active, and there is no fossil fuel usage in my country, my environment is only at about 60% still. A fully decarbonized economy would not have such a massive impact on the environment anymore, especially since fossil fuel-related air and water pollution are some of the biggest drivers of environmental degradation. There would certainly still be a negative environmental impact from any economic activity since it is impossible to avoid as humans, but it should not be as big.
I suggested that, much how like the impact on car usage from the petrol tax scales according to the electric car transition value, the impact on the environment from GDP should scale according to CO2 emissions. The lower the CO2 emissions, the lower the GDP impact on the environment, and vice versa. Or alternatively, certain policies like the climate change adaption fund could scale the impact of GDP on the environment to account for the fact that those negative impacts are being mitigated.
I guess if the rest of the world is accelerating Global Warming, you can’t exactly ‘skip’ it just because you’ve got all the best policies?
But you’re right as far as the game goes, it’d be good to get a handle on it. Maybe even a policy for ‘Global Initiative Against Global Warming’ where you fun it (from ‘observer’ to ‘large doner’ or something which’ll help?
I definitely agree, but at the end of the day, it will be impossible to truly simulate every nuance of the real world in a game. I think for the sake of simplicity, we can safely assume that the GDP value in-game refers to the impact of your own economy on the environment.
And that’s a good idea as well. It looks like there’s lots of solutions for how to simulate a reduced negative GDP impact on the environment that make sense.
Some environmental policies were added. I particularly appreciated the “Ban Coal” policy which had a nice impact on environment and respiratory disease. Also reforestation now effects environment. But your right i think i was only able to get 60% environment with all policies active. But it was fine because all negative effects are gone?
Still with high GDP usually you have the better environment. I found that the USA has better air quality then Europe due to better air quality laws. Also more forest cover than ever before in USA. The only big environmental negatives in USA are farm related which is why i hoped to get some of that reflected in game.
In USA we have a big problem with farm run off polluting water and large farming subsidies leading to more marginal land being put into production. Its bad for water soil and natural environment. Large concentrated animal farming is an issue also.
A 2008 Government Accountability Office study looking at just five counties in North Carolina estimated that their CAFOs produced 15.5 million tons of pig manure every year.
Where does this manure — not to mention pig urine, as well — go? Into the air, largely. North Carolina farms typically use what’s called a “lagoon and sprayfield” system in which animal waste is stored in massive, open vats. It’s then sprayed back into the air to fertilize crops.
Carbon emissions and other pollution aren’t really the same thing. As jmski mentions above, you have factors like animal waste, deforestation, and industrial runoff. And having good policies in one doesn’t mean you’ll have good policies on the other. I think France would have a lower environment than the United States and vice versa for Carbon, IIRC.
I like the mod and the fact that you put long implementation times on it. Might be too strong. Ill check it out.