GDP needs to affect the environment in a way that is less direct than it currently does. There are, in my opinion, far too many events that have an immediate rise or fall in GDP that causes pollution to immediately spike or immediately subside and that’s just not how it works!
Perhaps a “Clean Industry Transition” should be made much in the same way as “Electric Car Transition”, with programs that can incentivize or disincentivize it? Perhaps the effect could modify GDP’s effect on the Environment? I just think it would be a smarter approach than having an automated trading event lead to a 15% decrease in pollution immediately. :b
This is a very fair point, and one we should address. I am currently planning on introducing a new piece of UI that lets you see when an effect is scaled by other effects, which currently can happen… but is never shown. That would allow me to introduce a lot more stuff like this without having to introduce a new blue-circle item.
I am wary of adding too many of those because I think it leads to a really cluttered UI (especially on small monitors) and is off putting to new players.
So I’m aware of it, and intend to change it
“Clean Industry Transition” is a great idea.
Anything that ought to be cumulative should be made cumulative.
The Environment ought to change fairly slowly over time, damage to it should be added turn by turn, and recovery efforts should be equally detracted turn by turn. In absence of any human activity (which never happens, but just as the principle of the thing), it should also extremely slowly recover by itself.
i was about to start a thread on this but i will join this one. I like Elijah’s suggestion. Have a state variable (blue object) that represents clean industry transition and one that represents clean transportation transition. All or most of your pollution would then be moderated by these two variables. This might actually simplify and make more consistent your handling of pollution. Especially the car transition thing is confusing. There are so many things to reduce car pollution its not clear if they work together. If they all effected the clean transportation variable it might be more clear.
It does make sense to have GDP directly effect environment but you have to chose. Do you model the environmental impacts explicitly or implicitly? If GDP effects the environment directly then all environment policies should moderate GDP impact on environment. If modeled explicitly GDP will not have an effect on environment but each environmental impactor will be modeled individually and impact environment individually. Right now its sort of mixed which might be confusing or lead to double counting.
Here is one model:
Green Energy Transition (0-100)------------|
Clean Industry Transition (0-100)-----------|>–pollution from GDP (0-100)
Clean Transportation Transition (0-100)–|
GDP (0-100)--------> pollution from GDP (0-100) ------->Environment (0-100)
All environmental policies only directly effect the transitions.
here is a simple fix and alternative to the model i posted above:
If you max your GDP it is easy to put CO2 to zero, dont even have to implement all the policies that effect CO2. With max GDP its almost impossible to find policies that get your environment off zero. One solution is just to make the pollution controls stronger, that lever should be able to drive GDP pollution to zero even if it drives GDP to zero. At least you have a lever.
As economies advance they GDP has less effect on the environment. This is due to transition to services. This could be modeled as a hidden variable that represents the % of the GDP that is service oriented. Or, perhaps more simply, the level of technology could directly lower GDP impact on the environment and this would implicitly model transition to services.
Well, the environment is not just GHG emissions and pollution, it’s also resource extraction and depletion which is probably as if not more destructive than climate change.
I still have an issue with GDP being connected to the environment because I don’t see the thought process here, are the factories that produces the products are really that un-eco with or without the green policies?
Cost-cutting does lead to environmental or social damage, depending on who you want to sacrifice to profit. Or both, if you want both. It doesn’t have to be, but short-termism is usually an issue when considering profits, maybe it emulates that thinking? We do see it in real life with shoddy construction, poor safety, low wages, pollution run off and so on.
So… this is why GDP is a current link?
I imagine, but it’s best to get an answer from Cliff.